[seam-dev] Identifying which jars contains seam/cdi extensions and programmatic extensions ?

[Pete Muir]

On 28 Mar 2011, at 19:19, Alexey Kazakov wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>> I'm a bit concerned about you scanning weld* jars - what are you trying to discover by doing this? Do you have a list of beans discovered this way?
> See the list here http://pastebin.com/U902Din1
> And see related JBT issues https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-8017 and https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-8019

Currently this is exposing a lot of classes that are part of the private impl detail of Weld and won't work at runtime (at least this is only confusing for the user, not potentially breaking for their app). Really, I think it would be better if you just scanned cdi-api.jar and weld-api.jar as this exposes the interfaces that are part of the public API of CDI and Weld.

Currently some of the stuff from Weld's API doesn't have qualifiers on the interfaces (e.g. HttpConversationContext should be @Default @Http) but file a JIRA to get those added. You will also need some "special" logic here as these are of course interfaces which aren't normally beans.

> 
>> BTW Wweld-extensions doesn't exist anymore.
>> 
>> No documented way to do this right now, but I'm also not sure of a good way to do this for the reasons below. We do need something though, I agree. Can you make a CDI issue for this, so it doesn't fall off our radar?
> We have an issue in Weld Jira - https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-815
> Should we create another one against CDI?
> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> On 25 Mar 2011, at 18:22, Alexey Kazakov wrote:
>> 
>>> We are going to support Seam 3 extensions (such as @Veto, generic, ...) so we don't need to have some extra meta for such beans.
>>> We are going to look at META-INF/services/javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension and handle all the known extensions properly.
>>> But is it enough for Seam 3? For instance for weld we had to scan *weld*.jar's in a special way since they don't have beans.xml. But some of those beans we should not load (for example we don't load weld-extensions*.jar). How we supposed to recognize such beans in design time? Is there any documented way to do it?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 03/25/2011 03:37 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>> I thought the plan was for JBDS to natively understand Solder annotations to overcome this problem.
>>>> 
>>>> I really don't think that forcing some xml file on extension developers is very clever - either they would have to use this as the canonical source of info in which case we're back to programming in XML and it doesn't look good when people ask for examples of using CDI extensions, or we have to keep this stuff in sync.
>>>> 
>>>> On 24 Mar 2011, at 20:56, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Talking with Seam/CDI tooling team at EclipseCon and we are still in the dark on how tooling are supposed to identify CDI extensions that are registered programmatically and often does not have a beans.xml to "mark" them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Today we do it by simply scanning jars with *weld*.jar naming pattern (very brittle and not good for 3rd party extensions).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Furthermore we also have a list of classes to include/exclude since some components in these jars aren't CDI compliant.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How do we go about identifying these things ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The idea discussed with Dan/Pete on this topic previously were to add a design-beans.xml
>>>>> and use that as a marker + list the classes we should load/configure as possible injection/navigation candidates in the tooling.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was hoping this were settled before Seam 3 GA but it seem to fallen through the cracks ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Something I missed ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> /max
>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> seam-dev mailing list
>>>>> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>