[seam-dev] Interceptor packaging convention

[Mark Struberg]

+1 for Lincolns arguments

*) I DO use this in production already.
*) I have 3 frameworks with CDI interceptors now
*) they all DON't interfere currently. There are such cases, but they are way less than 5% in my experience (from 4 years of working with spring interceptors).
*) it's nowhere mentioned in the spec that there must only be one beans.xml with a <interceptor> section.


IF you really need a hard dependency, would providing a portable extension (in it's own jar aka bean archive) which modifies the ProcessModule#getInterceptors() and fills it with a extension specific configured ordered list of interceptors help?

LieGrue,
strub

--- Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> schrieb am Mo, 29.3.2010:

> Von: Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com>
> Betreff: Re: [seam-dev] Interceptor packaging convention
> An: "Lincoln Baxter, III" <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com>
> CC: "Seam Dev List" <seam-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Datum: Montag, 29. März, 2010 20:56 Uhr
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:47 PM,
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I understand the technical reasons why interceptor
> ordering is important,
> > but I disagree completely with the lack of options, or
> ability to ignore
> > said technical reasons. The reason the enabler jar
> works well is because it
> > provides a consistent way to order interceptors
> *within* the Seam framework.
> >
> > 95% of the time that is going to be enough. 5% of the
> time it's not.
> 
> I just don't buy this. It's going to work fine when you
> ONLY have the
> Seam interceptors, and don't have any other interceptors.
> As soon as
> you start adding your own interceptors, or the interceptors
> of another
> framework, it's HIGHLY likely that you're going to need to
> specify
> their precedence w.r.t. the Seam interceptors.
> 
> > Why should we force people to work extra hard to get
> things working, when
> > they should only have to work extra hard if there is a
> problem? Think of it
> > from the POV of a user: Do they want to fix things to
> get started? Or do
> > they want to fix things only if they are broken?
> 
> 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!
> 
> > This isn't a matter of technical correctness, we can
> ensure technical
> > correctness by allowing users to exclude the
> Seam-enabler.jar from their POM
> > and fall back to Beans.xml for manual interceptor
> registration.
> 
> And how is this solution easier than just giving people a
> standard,
> pre-written beans.xml file that they include in their Seam
> projects as
> a starting point? It can even be added automatically by
> JBoss Tools or
> the Maven archectype. Then, when they come to add their
> own
> interceptors, it's easy to just edit this file.
> 
> Including a jar in the classpath is actually much more work
> than
> including a pre-written beans.xml file!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gavin King
> gavin.king at gmail.com
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
> http://hibernate.org
> http://seamframework.org
> _______________________________________________
> seam-dev mailing list
> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. 
http://mail.yahoo.com