You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltaspike.apache.org by Adrian Gonzalez <ad...@yahoo.fr> on 2011/12/28 08:19:58 UTC
Re : [DISCUSS] config based exclude
Hello,
1. just to confirm : this functionnality would be enabled per JAR (beans.xml ?)
2. wouldn't it be interesting to add something link exclude-annotation ?
CDI would the ignore classes marked with those annotations.
This could benefit some use cases like Spring / CDI integration when user annotates Spring beans with= @Service, @Repository, @Controller, @Component [1].
3. exclude-package : is it a list of regexp (could be usefull to ignore entity in only one line : .*\.domain for com.sample.client.domain, com.sample.salary.domain, etc...) ?
[1] see http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.1.x/spring-frame= work-reference/html/beans.html#beans-stereotype-annotations
________________________________
De : Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
À : deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Envoyé le : Mercredi 28 Décembre 2011 1h56
Objet : [DISCUSS] config based exclude
hi @ all,
i've seen a lot of objections concerning the specified behaviour that every
(non-abstract) class in a cdi archive is a bean managed by the cdi
container.
that's basically a topic for the cdi spec. itself, however, we can also
think about an additional feature for the bda-impl module of deltaspike.
since we are going to discuss a low-level config [1] which is also
available during the bootstrapping process of a cdi container, we could
think about introducing something like:
"exclude-package" and "auto-exclude"
auto-exclude would #veto all classes without an explicit scope annotation
(the default scope is Dependent - but if auto-exclude is activated a
default scope wouldn't be supported. the problem with such a default scope
is that you don't know if it is intended that there isn't a specified
scope.)
regards,
gerhard
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-36
Re: Re : [DISCUSS] config based exclude
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
@adrian:
i would keep it simple -> a global config (per application).
@mark:
#1 we don't need to introduce a full scanning process
#2 if you don't need it and you have a problem with the performance impact
during the bootstrapping process (>might< be the case in a >very< large
project), you can deactivate the extension
#3 @Veto vs * is a different thread (this idea is just related)
regards,
gerhard
2011/12/28 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> CDI treats each and every class which doesn't have an explicite scope as
> @Dependent.
> I also really dislike this, but we cannot easily change this in the spec
> now as it would break backward compatibility.
>
>
> You can basically exclude beans already in CDI-1.0 by using the @Typed()
> annotation.
>
> The problem is that this is pretty un-intuitive and not well known. But it
> works well in all containers and doesn't even need any Extension.
>
> That's the reason why I'm not happy with any other name than @Veto. And
> @Veto only for compat reasons with Seam3. All other names are just equally
> worse and it would be easier to spread the word about @Typed()
>
> The 'auto-exclude' is a new thing of course. It allows to exclude whole
> packages, but I fear this might be error prone.
>
>
> Btw we should try to minimize our own annotation scanning as it a.) costs
> PermGenSpace and b.) costs time.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Adrian Gonzalez <ad...@yahoo.fr>
> > To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:19 AM
> > Subject: Re : [DISCUSS] config based exclude
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > 1. just to confirm : this functionnality would be enabled per JAR
> (beans.xml ?)
> >
> > 2. wouldn't it be interesting to add something link exclude-annotation ?
> > CDI would the ignore classes marked with those annotations.
> > This could benefit some use cases like Spring / CDI integration when user
> > annotates Spring beans with= @Service, @Repository, @Controller,
> @Component [1].
> >
> >
> > 3. exclude-package : is it a list of regexp (could be usefull to ignore
> entity
> > in only one line : .*\.domain for
> > com.sample.client.domain, com.sample.salary.domain, etc...) ?
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] see http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.1.x/spring-frame=
> > work-reference/html/beans.html#beans-stereotype-annotations
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > De : Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> > À : deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Envoyé le : Mercredi 28 Décembre 2011 1h56
> > Objet : [DISCUSS] config based exclude
> >
> > hi @ all,
> >
> > i've seen a lot of objections concerning the specified behaviour that
> every
> > (non-abstract) class in a cdi archive is a bean managed by the cdi
> > container.
> > that's basically a topic for the cdi spec. itself, however, we can also
> > think about an additional feature for the bda-impl module of deltaspike.
> >
> > since we are going to discuss a low-level config [1] which is also
> > available during the bootstrapping process of a cdi container, we could
> > think about introducing something like:
> > "exclude-package" and "auto-exclude"
> >
> > auto-exclude would #veto all classes without an explicit scope annotation
> > (the default scope is Dependent - but if auto-exclude is activated a
> > default scope wouldn't be supported. the problem with such a default
> scope
> > is that you don't know if it is intended that there isn't a specified
> > scope.)
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-36
> >
>
Re: Re : [DISCUSS] config based exclude
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
CDI treats each and every class which doesn't have an explicite scope as @Dependent.
I also really dislike this, but we cannot easily change this in the spec now as it would break backward compatibility.
You can basically exclude beans already in CDI-1.0 by using the @Typed() annotation.
The problem is that this is pretty un-intuitive and not well known. But it works well in all containers and doesn't even need any Extension.
That's the reason why I'm not happy with any other name than @Veto. And @Veto only for compat reasons with Seam3. All other names are just equally worse and it would be easier to spread the word about @Typed()
The 'auto-exclude' is a new thing of course. It allows to exclude whole packages, but I fear this might be error prone.
Btw we should try to minimize our own annotation scanning as it a.) costs PermGenSpace and b.) costs time.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Adrian Gonzalez <ad...@yahoo.fr>
> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:19 AM
> Subject: Re : [DISCUSS] config based exclude
>
> Hello,
>
> 1. just to confirm : this functionnality would be enabled per JAR (beans.xml ?)
>
> 2. wouldn't it be interesting to add something link exclude-annotation ?
> CDI would the ignore classes marked with those annotations.
> This could benefit some use cases like Spring / CDI integration when user
> annotates Spring beans with= @Service, @Repository, @Controller, @Component [1].
>
>
> 3. exclude-package : is it a list of regexp (could be usefull to ignore entity
> in only one line : .*\.domain for
> com.sample.client.domain, com.sample.salary.domain, etc...) ?
>
>
>
> [1] see http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.1.x/spring-frame=
> work-reference/html/beans.html#beans-stereotype-annotations
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De : Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> À : deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Envoyé le : Mercredi 28 Décembre 2011 1h56
> Objet : [DISCUSS] config based exclude
>
> hi @ all,
>
> i've seen a lot of objections concerning the specified behaviour that every
> (non-abstract) class in a cdi archive is a bean managed by the cdi
> container.
> that's basically a topic for the cdi spec. itself, however, we can also
> think about an additional feature for the bda-impl module of deltaspike.
>
> since we are going to discuss a low-level config [1] which is also
> available during the bootstrapping process of a cdi container, we could
> think about introducing something like:
> "exclude-package" and "auto-exclude"
>
> auto-exclude would #veto all classes without an explicit scope annotation
> (the default scope is Dependent - but if auto-exclude is activated a
> default scope wouldn't be supported. the problem with such a default scope
> is that you don't know if it is intended that there isn't a specified
> scope.)
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-36
>