[seam-dev] Interceptor packaging convention

[Gavin King]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III
<lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the lecture on the need to make things easy for users.
>> Clearly it's an issue that had not occurred to me before. Wow, I had
>> never considered thinking of things from the POV of a user!
>
> It's a point I seem to make frequently.

Then stop now. Because I guarantee you that everyone on this team
spends a lot of time thinking about usability and doesn't need to be
lectured on the topic.

>> Including a jar in the classpath is actually much more work than
>> including a pre-written beans.xml file!
>
> That's why the JAR is included by default via Maven -- or provided in the
> "Dump these jars into your app" folder that we have in the Dist-releases. No
> extra work required to include it.

And so I repeat my question: how is this better than a pre-written XML
file that is included by default?

> You mentioned this a few times, so I'll bite: What other kind of frameworks,
> those that would provide interceptors, do you see people needing to use,
> specifically those that would conflict with our interceptors? Frameworks
> that more than 5% of people will be using.

I expect that a very high percentage (>50%) of CDI portable extensions
will include at least one interceptor. And if Seam is the only
portable extension that users are going to be using then CDI has, by
definition, failed. The whole reason for doing this stuff was to
create a platform for portable extensions to the programming model of
Java EE.


-- 
Gavin King
gavin.king at gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org