[seam-dev] Interceptor packaging convention

[Shane Bryzak]

That seems like an appropriate interim solution to me.  We really need 
to be on our toes when it comes to "complexity creep", and having 
auto-registered interceptors should be a given seeing as our long-time 
modus operandi has always been about providing sensible defaults.

On 26/03/10 10:31, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> We could possibly add a non-portable way of doing this automatically for weld, document that if you are using a different CDI provider you need to do this manually and push to get it included in a later revision of the spec?
>
> Stuart
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: seam-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org [seam-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Shane Bryzak [sbryzak at redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, 26 March 2010 11:27 AM
> To: Lincoln Baxter, III
> Cc: Seam Dev List
> Subject: Re: [seam-dev] Interceptor packaging convention
>
> This will be a major inconvenience for our users if we expect them to manually add all the interceptors they need for conversations, security, transactions, and who knows what else.  Is there absolutely no other way that we can automatically register these in the extension?  Also I'm not a big fan of having to use the org.jboss.seam.intercept namespace, I don't want to have to include a lone class in this package if all my other classes are in (for example the security module) org.jboss.seam.security.
>
> On 26/03/10 10:14, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> Seam Devs,
>
> Dan and I have been working on the @Begin and @End conversation support for Seam Faces, and we've discovered that there is a new fact of life for consumers of portable CDI extensions. Due to the fact that @Interceptors cannot be enabled in the extensions themselves (due to restrictions on beans.xml for purposes of absolute ordering in the application. See: http://seamframework.org/Community/EnablingAnInterceptorInALibrary )
>
> This presents an interesting issue; we want to be providing a good out-of-box experience, but interceptors must be registered manually.
>
> This means that @Interceptor classes must be:
>
>   *   Exposed to the developer
>   *   Registered manually by the developer in beans.xml -<interceptors>...</interceptors>
>   *   Consistently named and packaged to prevent refactoring / backwards compatibility issues
>   *   Checked at startup in order to warn devs that they are using annotations with no enabled @Interceptor
>
> We would like to propose the following conventions in order to address the above concerns:
>
> All @Interceptor classes must:
>
>   1.  Adhere to the following package and naming scheme: org.jboss.seam.intercept.*Interceptor
>   2.  Warn users (or Error out when appropriate) if they are using interceptable @Annotations when the @Inteceptor itself is not registered:
> (@Interceptor registration can be checked in the Extension class AfterBeanDiscovery via BeanManager.resolveInterceptors(type, interceptorBindings)
>
> This presents users with:
>
>   1.  A consistent naming scheme to help prevent typos.
>   2.  A safety net to catch them when they fall down (because we forgot to tie the ladder.)
>   3.  A protected namespace so that when we refactor, we don't break their world. (Even though #2 would catch it.)
>
> I've updated the Seam 3 Development Guidelines<http://seamframework.org/Seam3/DevelopmentGuidelines>  to reflect these conventions - they can be changed as needed pending the outcome of this discussion :)
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seam-dev mailing list
> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:seam-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>
>
>