[cdi-dev] [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of adding a parameter in @Observes

[Mark Struberg]

+1 (== enhance and use @Priority)


LieGrue,
strub


On Tuesday, 28 October 2014, 9:57, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:


>
>
>To add events ordering feature we have two choices:
>
>1) Use @Priority from common annotation specification (JSR-250)  (vote +1)
>pros:
>- more consistent with other ordering mechanism we already have in CDI (Interceptors, decorators, Alternatives)
>- more Java EE consistent
>
>cons:
>- time consumed in JSR 250 MR participation (@Priority must be update to support parameter for target)
>- as @Priority is not part of Java SE, CDI light on java SE will have to add the jsr250 jar as dependency only to have this annotation (which will make it a little less light)
>
>2) Add a parameter to @Observes annotation to give order to an observer (vote -1)
>pros:
>- works out of the box (we can add this property without ask for other specs modification)
>- avoid two annotations to declare an ordered observer (simpler usage)
>
>cons:
>- less Java EE spirit
>- could be seen as an inconsistency with the way we order Interceptors, Decorators and Alternatives.
>
>————————————————————
>
>Who can vote?  Everybody registered to this ML can vote. All votes will be binding
>How to vote? Answer this mail and vote +1 (for @Priority) 0 or -1(for parameter in @Observes)
>Vote will be closed in 72 hours
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>
>