[seam-dev] Interceptor packaging convention

[Arbi Sookazian]

>From the POV of a professional Seam 2.x user (and potential Weld/Seam 3
user) I'd like to state that one of the things I like about Seam is the
mostly static and minimal (e.g. components.xml, pages.xml, web.xml and
faces-config.xml) XML files I need to touch.  Focusing on ease-of-use is
critical to adoption.

Regarding this particular argument, I'm going to side with GKing.
Realistically, as a user of this frmwk, how many times per day/week, on
average, would I have to update the beans.xml file for a large-sized project
(i.e. multi-module Mavenized Seam project)?  I don't touch the above
mentioned Seam 2.x xml files every day or sometimes even every week/month
(thanks to annotations).

And it is possible that we will write and use custom interceptors from
time-to-time.  So in this more complicated scenario (multiple portable
extensions, etc.) how shall we avoid the "clusterfuck" that GKing envisions
if we don't do it his (the spec's) way??

How much of an inconvenience is it to the dev on a daily basis??

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20100329/9237ad7e/attachment-0001.html