[cdi-dev] Today's meeting will be shorter and about SE

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

ServiceLoader.load(<api>) = ServiceLoader.load(<api>, tccl)

I was thinking to a plain servlet engine (tomcat to not say any name)
and CDI container API to boot in webapps. Having cdi API in tomcat
itself and CDI impl in webapps (Weld in webapp1, OWB in webapp2 for
instance). This would mean using one webapp classloader to find the
booter/container. This is fine excepted if the instance is cached.

Same thought in more complicated about OSGi but I guess it is not yet
the target.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau


2014-12-18 8:58 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>:
>
> On 12/18/2014 08:48 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> - why shutdown and not AutoClosable?
>
> I like this idea.
>>
>> - about instance: it uses TCCL to load the impls, not sure it is
>> intended but depending the deployment it can be an issue (is this api
>> 100% JavaSE + flat classpath - ie more constrained than JavaSE?) +
>> most of javax SPI creates a new instance each time "creator" is
>> called.
>
> I don't follow. Who uses TCCL?
>>
>> - Why Booter and not Container (better than factory IMO)? 1) for
>> consistency with other spec, 2) why can I shutdown a booter ;)?
>
> Exactly
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-18 8:37 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>:
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2014 04:33 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought today's meeting was pretty good.  Based on one of the
>>> discussion
>>> points, I wanted to try putting together an interface that described the
>>> boot paradigm.  Unfortunately even in Java 8 it doesn't work too well, I
>>> cannot assign a static variable in an interface the way I can in an
>>> abstract
>>> class.  More importantly, it doesn't give us the private level
>>> expectation I
>>> would look for in this case.  I best I could come up with using an
>>> interface
>>> is:
>>>
>>> public interface CDIBooter {
>>>      default BeanManager initialize() {
>>>          return initialize(new HashMap<>());
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      BeanManager initialize(Map<?,?> properties);
>>>
>>> Why BeanManager? I think it would be better to return CDI or its subclass
>>> rather than this low-level SPI. With the CDI class we get more
>>> user-friendly
>>> Instance<T> for free. We could also expose Event<T> similarly.
>>>
>>>
>>>      void shutdown();
>>>
>>>      class BootHolder {
>>>
>>>          static CDIBooter instance = null;
>>>
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      static CDIBooter instance() {
>>>          if(BootHolder.instance == null) {
>>>              ServiceLoader<CDIBooter> serviceLoader =
>>> ServiceLoader.load(CDIBooter.class);
>>>              for(CDIBooter booter : serviceLoader) {
>>>                  BootHolder.instance = booter;
>>>                  break;
>>>              }
>>>          }
>>>          return BootHolder.instance;
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>> where as the abstract class is a bit briefer, while also being private.
>>>
>>> public abstract class CDIBooter {
>>>      public BeanManager initialize() {
>>>          return initialize(new HashMap<>());
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      public abstract BeanManager initialize(Map<?,?> properties);
>>>
>>>      public abstract void shutdown();
>>>
>>>      private static CDIBooter instance = null;
>>>
>>>      public static CDIBooter instance() {
>>>          if(instance == null) {
>>>              ServiceLoader<CDIBooter> serviceLoader =
>>> ServiceLoader.load(CDIBooter.class);
>>>              for(CDIBooter booter : serviceLoader) {
>>>                  instance = booter;
>>>                  break;
>>>              }
>>>          }
>>>          return instance;
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Obviously ignore concurrency issues, etc.  It does look to be safer to do
>>> an
>>> abstract class, rather than a factory-interface.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed Dec 17 2014 at 10:40:44 AM Antoine Sabot-Durand
>>> <antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have business matter and will have to shorten the meeting tonight
>>>> (half
>>>> an hour instead of 1h).
>>>>
>>>> I updated the SE doc and Antonio added useful annexes :
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LgsGT-AAlrF72Z5pW4xNQiVjUHGUME46ZmB-wwF35Yw/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> I propose we focus on this in these 30 mn
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> Antoine
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>
>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
>>>> code under the Apache License, Version 2
>>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
>>>> intellectual
>>>> property rights inherent in such information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>
>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
>>> code
>>> under the Apache License, Version 2
>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
>>> intellectual
>>> property rights inherent in such information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>
>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
>>> code
>>> under the Apache License, Version 2
>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
>>> intellectual
>>> property rights inherent in such information.
>
>