<div dir="ltr">Hey guys,<div><br></div><div>thinking more to it here few more remarks/requests:</div><div><br></div><div>- as an extension writer think having an explicit build is better than an implicit one in particular when you manage several built instances. The fact it is sometimes implicit sometimes explicit has these drawbacks:</div><div>-- API starts to be huge for a poor gain</div><div>-- you actually don't know what is done more easily if not inline (which is likely the case for medium/advanced extensions)</div><div><br></div><div>- why having Builders class with static methods where we could use the bean manager as entry point for them. Would be more natural since the BM already build some instance like AT and easier to find in the IDE and look less magic.</div><div>-- bonus on this one: would also bind the calls to a CDI context which makes things easier to track and if we speak later of multiple contexts in the same classloader we wouldn't be broken</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>wdyt?</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br><span style="font-size:small">Romain Manni-Bucau</span><br><a href="https://twitter.com/rmannibucau" target="_blank">@rmannibucau</a> | <a href="http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com" target="_blank">Blog</a> | <a href="https://github.com/rmannibucau" target="_blank">Github</a> | <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a> | <a href="http://www.tomitribe.com" target="_blank">Tomitriber</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-05 16:01 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com" target="_blank">rmannibucau@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Why not making all Annotated* mutable during boot lifecycle?<div><br></div><div>Would allow to get rid of the annotated root in the modification code, for instance we could convert:</div><div><br></div><div> <span style="color:rgb(44,45,48);font-family:Slack-Lato,appleLogo,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:22px;background-color:rgb(249,249,249)">type.getMethods().stream().filter(m -> m.isAnnotationPresent(Foo.class)).forEach(m ->event.setAnnotatedType().addToMethod(m, MyInterceptor.BINDING));</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(44,45,48);font-family:Slack-Lato,appleLogo,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:22px;background-color:rgb(249,249,249)"><br></span></div>to<div><span style="color:rgb(44,45,48);font-family:Slack-Lato,appleLogo,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:22px;background-color:rgb(249,249,249)"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(44,45,48);font-family:Slack-Lato,appleLogo,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:22px;background-color:rgb(249,249,249)"> </span><span style="color:rgb(44,45,48);font-family:Slack-Lato,appleLogo,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:22px;background-color:rgb(249,249,249)">type.getMethods().stream().filter(m -> m.isAnnotationPresent(Foo.class)).forEach(m -> m.mutate().add(MyInterceptor.BINDING));</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(44,45,48);font-family:Slack-Lato,appleLogo,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:22px;background-color:rgb(249,249,249)"><br></span></div>or if we don't want to add mutate in the existing types we could use configurator as root for type type and recreate a Configurator graph matching annotated graph.<div><br></div><div>Advatage is first code i a bit awkward in the sense you can call setAnnotatedType() multiple type (what would happen? only last modification will be saved? or you have to keep a reference to the configurator once called which breaks the fluent API provded by streams IMO.</div><div><br></div><div>wdyt?</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br><span style="font-size:small">Romain Manni-Bucau</span><br><a href="https://twitter.com/rmannibucau" target="_blank">@rmannibucau</a> | <a href="http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com" target="_blank">Blog</a> | <a href="https://github.com/rmannibucau" target="_blank">Github</a> | <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a> | <a href="http://www.tomitribe.com" target="_blank">Tomitriber</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">2016-02-05 15:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net" target="_blank">antoine@sabot-durand.net</a>></span>:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>Following discussion during last meeting, I rewrote most of my PR for builders.</div><div><br></div><div>We now have 2 clean and distinct ways of using them</div><div><br></div><div>1) in DSL style (with a Configurator interface without build() method)</div><div><br></div><div>public void processAT(@Observes ProcessAnnotatedType<?> pat) {</div><div> pat.setAnnotatedType().read(pat.getAnnotatedType()).addToType(new AnnotationLiteral<MyInterceptor>() {};);</div><div>}</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>2) In classical reusable builder mode (builders extends configurator and only add build() method)</div><div><br></div><div><div>public void processAT(@Observes ProcessAnnotatedType<?> pat) {</div><div> AnnotatedTypeBuilder atb = Builders.annotatedTypeBuilder();</div><div> atb.read(pat.getAnnotatedType()).addToType(new AnnotationLiteral<MyInterceptor>() {};);</div><div> pat.setAnnotatedType(atb.build());</div><div>}</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>As Configurators don't have build() method there's no risk that users mix them with standard builders.</div><div>For clarity sake, builders are no more available in lifecycle event but in Builders class for consistency.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm quite happy with the result, but I'm sure you'll have comment ;). So thanks for your feedback</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/270" target="_blank">https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/270</a><span><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Antoine</div></font></span></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
cdi-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
<br>
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>