You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltaspike.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2012/06/24 22:56:17 UTC
cdi-query
Hi,
just browsed http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html and
it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this stuff
i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
- Romain
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
that's an open question (maybe another thread) but in EE you often don't
want SE part even if it works, in SE you don't want EE parts. So maybe 3
modules and shades to make it user friendly.
but well, once again that's another topic, packaging is more a detail IMO
since there is nothing technically blocking on this topic.
- Romain
2012/6/25 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> The idea of the deltaspike-jpa module is that it should contain stuff
> which works in both SE and EE but doesn't require any non SE dependency
> besides the JPA-API.
>
>
> There will (most probably) be a deltaspike-jta module which adds EE
> functionality on top.
>
> But it's still possible to use SE functionality on any EE server, thus
> this cdi-query better fits to ds-jpa imo.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> >To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de
> >
> >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:08 PM
> >Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >
> >
> >hmm,
> >
> >
> >currently i'll not use the jpa module since it is not EE spirit (/!\ i
> don't say it is bad). What is nice with cdi-query is it delegate the tx
> context to the caller. It means it works everywhere.
> >
> >
> >Not sure i'm clear but i just would like to externalize the code needed
> for JSE apps and JEE ones.
> >
> >
> >But well any step to make it possible is already a good step
> >- Romain
> >
> >
> >
> >2012/6/25 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >
> >+1 great stuff to review and add them!
> >>
> >>That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >>
> >>LieGrue,
> >>strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Cc:
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>>
> >>> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >>>
> >>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> just browsed
> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >>> and
> >>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >>>>
> >>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of
> this stuff
> >>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
> >>>>
> >>>> - Romain
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
The idea of the deltaspike-jpa module is that it should contain stuff which works in both SE and EE but doesn't require any non SE dependency besides the JPA-API.
There will (most probably) be a deltaspike-jta module which adds EE functionality on top.
But it's still possible to use SE functionality on any EE server, thus this cdi-query better fits to ds-jpa imo.
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:08 PM
>Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
>
>hmm,
>
>
>currently i'll not use the jpa module since it is not EE spirit (/!\ i don't say it is bad). What is nice with cdi-query is it delegate the tx context to the caller. It means it works everywhere.
>
>
>Not sure i'm clear but i just would like to externalize the code needed for JSE apps and JEE ones.
>
>
>But well any step to make it possible is already a good step
>- Romain
>
>
>
>2012/6/25 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
>+1 great stuff to review and add them!
>>
>>That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>>
>>LieGrue,
>>strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>
>>> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>>>
>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> just browsed http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>>> and
>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>>
>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this stuff
>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
>>>>
>>>> - Romain
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
hmm,
currently i'll not use the jpa module since it is not EE spirit (/!\ i
don't say it is bad). What is nice with cdi-query is it delegate the tx
context to the caller. It means it works everywhere.
Not sure i'm clear but i just would like to externalize the code needed for
JSE apps and JEE ones.
But well any step to make it possible is already a good step
- Romain
2012/6/25 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>
> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >
> > IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >
> > On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> just browsed
> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> > and
> >> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >>
> >> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this
> stuff
> >> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
> >>
> >> - Romain
> >
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
it seems pretty close (including frmaework class names)
- Romain
2012/6/26 Bernard Łabno <s4...@pjwstk.edu.pl>
> Did you consider
> seam3-persistence-framework<
> http://blog.it-crowd.com.pl/2012/02/seam3-persistence-framework-comes-to_28.html
> >which
> is seam2 "framework" (the EntityQuery and EntityHome) ported seam3?
>
> 2012/6/26 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
> > I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
> >
> > We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
> > concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> > .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> > .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
> > ~30..50 new classes)
> >
> > Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do not
> > see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
> >
> > Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. The
> > classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much better
> > possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE
> patterns.
> >
> > What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
> > called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> > TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> > > Subject: Re: cdi-query
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > - Romain
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > >> @ pete:
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> > >>
> > >> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
> > >> e.g.:
> > >> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> > >> deltaspike-jpa-query
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >> gerhard
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >>
> > >> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
> ServiceHandler.
> > >> >
> > >> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a strong
> > > use
> > >> > case.
> > >> >
> > >> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> > > it's API
> > >> > whilst we are at it :-)
> > >> >
> > >> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> > > the radar:
> > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> > > ServiceHandler
> > >> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
> > >> Property
> > >> > utils.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Cheers,
> > >> > > Tom
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ________________________________________
> > >> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
> > >> > > Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2012 14:21
> > >> > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> > >> > >
> > >> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > LieGrue,
> > >> > > strub
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >> > >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > >> Cc:
> > >> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> > >> > >> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> Hi,
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> just browsed
> > >> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> > >> > >> and
> > >> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> > > lot of this
> > >> > stuff
> > >> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> > > portable way?
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> - Romain
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>.
IMO, the Seam2 Application Framework (Home, Query, etc. classes) was just a
bad idea. I know a lot of people used them and Gavin thought they were
great, but in reality for a larger application it becomes a nightmare. I'd
much rather focus on things CDI Query and let people create their own
service layer. I did something similar in the Open18 EE6 migration (
http://www.jboss.org/jdf/migrations/seam2/open18_migration/) it seemed to
work decently though it's certainly not production ready code :) I had
originally used CDI Query and that worked quite well.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Bernard Łabno <s4...@pjwstk.edu.pl> wrote:
> Did you consider
> seam3-persistence-framework<
> http://blog.it-crowd.com.pl/2012/02/seam3-persistence-framework-comes-to_28.html
> >which
> is seam2 "framework" (the EntityQuery and EntityHome) ported seam3?
>
> 2012/6/26 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
> > I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
> >
> > We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
> > concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> > .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> > .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
> > ~30..50 new classes)
> >
> > Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do not
> > see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
> >
> > Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. The
> > classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much better
> > possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE
> patterns.
> >
> > What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
> > called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> > TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> > > Subject: Re: cdi-query
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > - Romain
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > >> @ pete:
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> > >>
> > >> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
> > >> e.g.:
> > >> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> > >> deltaspike-jpa-query
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >> gerhard
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >>
> > >> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
> ServiceHandler.
> > >> >
> > >> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a strong
> > > use
> > >> > case.
> > >> >
> > >> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> > > it's API
> > >> > whilst we are at it :-)
> > >> >
> > >> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> > > the radar:
> > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> > > ServiceHandler
> > >> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
> > >> Property
> > >> > utils.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Cheers,
> > >> > > Tom
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ________________________________________
> > >> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
> > >> > > Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2012 14:21
> > >> > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> > >> > >
> > >> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > LieGrue,
> > >> > > strub
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >> > >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > >> Cc:
> > >> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> > >> > >> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> Hi,
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> just browsed
> > >> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> > >> > >> and
> > >> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> > > lot of this
> > >> > stuff
> > >> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> > > portable way?
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> - Romain
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
--
Jason Porter
http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate
Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Bernard Łabno <s4...@pjwstk.edu.pl>.
Did you consider
seam3-persistence-framework<http://blog.it-crowd.com.pl/2012/02/seam3-persistence-framework-comes-to_28.html>which
is seam2 "framework" (the EntityQuery and EntityHome) ported seam3?
2012/6/26 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>
> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
> ~30..50 new classes)
>
> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do not
> see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>
> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. The
> classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much better
> possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE patterns.
>
> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >
> > +1
> >
> > - Romain
> >
> >
> > 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> @ pete:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> >>
> >> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
> >> e.g.:
> >> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> >> deltaspike-jpa-query
> >> ...
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
> >> >
> >> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a strong
> > use
> >> > case.
> >> >
> >> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> > it's API
> >> > whilst we are at it :-)
> >> >
> >> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> > the radar:
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >> > >
> >> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> > ServiceHandler
> >> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
> >> Property
> >> > utils.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > > Tom
> >> > >
> >> > > ________________________________________
> >> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
> >> > > Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2012 14:21
> >> > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >> > >
> >> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> >> > >
> >> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >> > >
> >> > > LieGrue,
> >> > > strub
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >> > >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > >> Cc:
> >> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> >> > >> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> just browsed
> >> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >> > >> and
> >> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> > lot of this
> >> > stuff
> >> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> > portable way?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> - Romain
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
On 27 Jun 2012, at 05:43, Thomas Hug wrote:
> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the "decent size" category.
Agreed, I think the main thing to do is be flexible here. If a module starts to look unwieldy we can split it in two.
>
> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA queries or a JAX-RS client).
>
> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping. Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a Forge scaffolding provider?).
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>
> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min ~30..50 new classes)
>
> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>
> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE patterns.
>
> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>
>> +1
>>
>> - Romain
>>
>>
>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> @ pete:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>>
>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
>>> e.g.:
>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>>> ...
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>
>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
>>>>
>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
>>> strong
>> use
>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
>> it's API
>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>>>>
>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
>> the radar:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>>>>>
>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
>> ServiceHandler
>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
>>> Property > utils.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>>>>>
>>>>> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>>>>>
>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>> strub
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> just browsed
>>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
>> lot of this
>>>> stuff
>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
>> portable way?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
There are hundreds of opinions on this, ranging from really fine grained, to just a single jar.
We have to compromise and be flexible. There is no one rule here.
On 27 Jun 2012, at 05:46, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in another
> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users to
> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great feature.
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>
>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I
>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs are
>> usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features
>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the "decent
>> size" category.
>>
>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using methods
>> just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA queries or a
>> JAX-RS client).
>>
>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping. Could
>> be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a Forge
>> scaffolding provider?).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>
>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>>
>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
>> ~30..50 new classes)
>>
>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do not
>> see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>>
>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. The
>> classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much better
>> possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE patterns.
>>
>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> - Romain
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> @ pete:
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>>>
>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
>>>> e.g.:
>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
>>>> strong
>>> use
>>>>> case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
>>> it's API
>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
>>> the radar:
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
>>> ServiceHandler
>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
>>>> Property > utils.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> just browsed
>>>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
>>> lot of this
>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
>>> portable way?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
@ pete:
see e.g. the (shaded) all-in-one bundles (for jsf 1.2, 2.x,...) of myfaces
codi.
regards,
gerhard
2012/6/27 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> javaee-api in openejb for instance:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/javaee-api/pom.xml
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>
> > Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever
> seen
> > it be a good approach for frameworks.
> >
> > On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >
> > > @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part
> of
> > > the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user. Just a maven
> > > trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE
> > supports
> > > it without any issue.
> > >
> > > - Romain
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >
> > >> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing, with
> > it's
> > >> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help with
> > >> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
> > >>
> > >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Mark,
> > >>>
> > >>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module
> > simply
> > >>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Romain
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Romain, Arne.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into
> > which
> > >>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
> > >>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just 30
> > >>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each)
> > >> might
> > >>>> really be too much!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> LieGrue,
> > >>>> strub
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> ________________________________
> > >>>>> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
> > >>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
> > >>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
> > >>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> > >>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
> > >>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in
> > >> another
> > >>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing
> > users
> > >> to
> > >>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great
> > >> feature.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> - Romain
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a
> > user I
> > >>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those
> POMs
> > >>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of
> > features
> > >>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the
> > >>>>>> "decent size" category.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
> > >>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously
> > JPA
> > >>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
> > >>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for
> > prototyping.
> > >>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create
> e.g. a
> > >>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>> Tom
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> > >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> > >>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we
> all
> > >>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> > >>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> > >>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size
> > (min
> > >>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I
> do
> > >>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or
> > not.
> > >>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us
> > much
> > >>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to
> > _old_
> > >>>> EE patterns.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would
> better
> > >>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> > >>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>>>>> strub
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>> Cc:
> > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - Romain
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> @ pete:
> > >>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to
> > seam3).
> > >>>>>>>> e.g.:
> > >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> > >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
> > >>>>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> regards,
> > >>>>>>>> gerhard
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
> > >>>> ServiceHandler.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
> > >>>>>>>> strong
> > >>>>>>> use
> > >>>>>>>>> case.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> > >>>>>>> it's API
> > >>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> > >>>>>>> the radar:
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> > >>>>>>> ServiceHandler
> > >>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
> > >>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>> Tom
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
> > >>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>>>>>>>>> strub
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
> > >>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
> > >>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
> > >>>>>>>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> > >>>>>>> lot of this
> > >>>>>>>>> stuff
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> > >>>>>>> portable way?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
AW: cdi-query
Posted by Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>.
Spring practices this approach for a long time...
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 17:19
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: cdi-query
Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever seen it be a good approach for frameworks.
On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part
> of the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user. Just a
> maven trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice
> IDE supports it without any issue.
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>
>> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing, with
>> it's hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help
>> with DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
>>
>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module
>>> simply for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
>>>
>>> - Romain
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>
>>>> Romain, Arne.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into
>>>> which module. Any suggestion is welcome I think our whole JPA
>>>> functionality is not that huge and are just 30 classes overall.
>>>> Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each)
>> might
>>>> really be too much!
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
>>>>>
>>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>
>>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in
>> another
>>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing
>>>> users
>> to
>>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great
>> feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a
>>>>>> user I don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies,
>>>>>> those POMs are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the
>>>>>> amount of features integrating for such a query API, that might
>>>>>> well fall into the "decent size" category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
>>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs,
>>>>>> obviously JPA queries or a JAX-RS client).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
>>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping.
>>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create
>>>>>> e.g. a Forge scaffolding provider?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we
>>>>>> all concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
>>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
>>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size
>>>>>> (min
>>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I
>>>>>> do not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not.
>>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us
>>>>>> much better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall
>>>>>> back to _old_
>>>> EE patterns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would
>>>>>> better called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but
>>>>>> also TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @ pete:
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
>>>>>>>> e.g.:
>>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
>>>> ServiceHandler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can
>>>>>>>>> improve
>>>>>>> it's API
>>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
>>>>>>> the radar:
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
>>>>>>> ServiceHandler
>>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
>>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
>>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
>>>>>>>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
>>>>>>> lot of this
>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
>>>>>>> portable way?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
maybe packaging it with such modules is more relevent:
-> deltaspike-tx (@Transactional, jta), no link to jpa
-> deltaspike-jpa (potentially resource local management)
wdyt?
- Romain
2012/6/27 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> For today while DS is "small" sure.
>
> Note: a bundle deltaspike-all is still welcome i think.
>
> - Romain
> Le 27 juin 2012 20:08, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>
> Ok, I understand that point. Would it be fine to just have them in
>> separated packages?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> >To: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>;
>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:53 PM
>> >Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >
>> >
>> >Not really, myfaces is not here.
>> >And you are as bas as me wanting to impose your view Mark.
>> >One jar by purpose is easier to maintain or patch too...one jar by class
>> is a pain.
>> >On the ee/jee i think it is important to split to ease people to
>> understand what they use.
>> >- Romain
>> >Le 27 juin 2012 19:24, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>> >
>> >This is a perfectly bad example! With this shaded jar you cannot easily
>> upgrade single projects like MyFaces to a newer version...
>> >>
>> >>LieGrue,
>> >>strub
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> >>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> Cc:
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:22 PM
>> >>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>
>> >>> javaee-api in openejb for instance:
>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/javaee-api/pom.xml
>> >>>
>> >>> - Romain
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never
>> ever
>> >>> seen
>> >>>> it be a good approach for frameworks.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some
>> part
>> >>> of
>> >>>> > the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user.
>> >>> Just a maven
>> >>>> > trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE
>> >>>> supports
>> >>>> > it without any issue.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > - Romain
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already
>> >>> confusing, with
>> >>>> it's
>> >>>> >> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't
>> >>> help with
>> >>>> >> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>> Mark,
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create
>> >>> a module
>> >>>> simply
>> >>>> >>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> - Romain
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>> Romain, Arne.
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should
>> >>> push into
>> >>>> which
>> >>>> >>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
>> >>>> >>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and
>> >>> are just 30
>> >>>> >>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api +
>> >>> impl each)
>> >>>> >> might
>> >>>> >>>> really be too much!
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>> >>>> strub
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> ________________________________
>> >>>> >>>>> From: Arne Limburg
>> >>> <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>> >>>> >>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>> >>> <
>> >>>> >>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>> >>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>> >>>> >>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> >>>> >>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>> >>>> >>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>> >>>> >>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>> >>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be
>> >>> pushed in
>> >>>> >> another
>> >>>> >>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think
>> >>> allowing
>> >>>> users
>> >>>> >> to
>> >>>> >>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is
>> >>> a great
>> >>>> >> feature.
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> - Romain
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug
>> >>> <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of
>> >>> modules. As a
>> >>>> user I
>> >>>> >>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x
>> >>> dependencies, those POMs
>> >>>> >>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on
>> >>> the amount of
>> >>>> features
>> >>>> >>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well
>> >>> fall into the
>> >>>> >>>>>> "decent size" category.
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very
>> >>> convenient when using
>> >>>> >>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored
>> >>> procs, obviously
>> >>>> JPA
>> >>>> >>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the
>> >>> Home API in a
>> >>>> >>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite
>> >>> handy for
>> >>>> prototyping.
>> >>>> >>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API
>> >>> (and create e.g. a
>> >>>> >>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>> >>>>>> Tom
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> >>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>> >>>> >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>> >>>> >>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very
>> >>> beginning, and we all
>> >>>> >>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing
>> >>> a new module:
>> >>>> >>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like
>> >>> jta, jpa, jsf)
>> >>>> >>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and
>> >>> has a decent size
>> >>>> (min
>> >>>> >>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more
>> >>> than 10 classes yet, I do
>> >>>> >>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for
>> >>> them.
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we
>> >>> have a new API or
>> >>>> not.
>> >>>> >>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead
>> >>> anyway. EE-6 gave us
>> >>>> much
>> >>>> >>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and
>> >>> not fall back to
>> >>>> _old_
>> >>>> >>>> EE patterns.
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the
>> >>> 'jta' module would better
>> >>>> >>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only
>> >>> contain JTA but also
>> >>>> >>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>> >>>>>> strub
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> >>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>> <rm...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> >>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>> >>>>>>> Cc:
>> >>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>> >>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>> +1
>> >>>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>> - Romain
>> >>>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek
>> >>> <ge...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> @ pete:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained
>> >>> structure (similar to
>> >>>> seam3).
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> e.g.:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> ...
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> regards,
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> gerhard
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir
>> >>> <pm...@redhat.com>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good
>> >>> use cases for the
>> >>>> >>>> ServiceHandler.
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to
>> >>> DS core, now we have a
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> strong
>> >>>> >>>>>>> use
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> case.
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Property util should not be
>> >>> controversial. Maybe we can improve
>> >>>> >>>>>>> it's API
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little
>> >>> early, but it's already on
>> >>>> >>>>>>> the radar:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly
>> >>> depends on the Solder
>> >>>> >>>>>>> ServiceHandler
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS,
>> >>> waiting for CDI 1.1) and
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tom
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg
>> >>> [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
>> >>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add
>> >>> them!
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the
>> >>> deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> strub
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir
>> >>> <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012
>> >>> 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >>
>> >>> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56,
>> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a
>> >>> spring-data CDI oriented).
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on
>> >>> solder but since DS integrates a
>> >>>> >>>>>>> lot of this
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> stuff
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be
>> >>> integrated in DS in a really
>> >>>> >>>>>>> portable way?
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
For today while DS is "small" sure.
Note: a bundle deltaspike-all is still welcome i think.
- Romain
Le 27 juin 2012 20:08, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> Ok, I understand that point. Would it be fine to just have them in
> separated packages?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> >To: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>;
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:53 PM
> >Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >
> >
> >Not really, myfaces is not here.
> >And you are as bas as me wanting to impose your view Mark.
> >One jar by purpose is easier to maintain or patch too...one jar by class
> is a pain.
> >On the ee/jee i think it is important to split to ease people to
> understand what they use.
> >- Romain
> >Le 27 juin 2012 19:24, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> >
> >This is a perfectly bad example! With this shaded jar you cannot easily
> upgrade single projects like MyFaces to a newer version...
> >>
> >>LieGrue,
> >>strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> >>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Cc:
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:22 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>>
> >>> javaee-api in openejb for instance:
> >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/javaee-api/pom.xml
> >>>
> >>> - Romain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>>
> >>>> Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever
> >>> seen
> >>>> it be a good approach for frameworks.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some
> part
> >>> of
> >>>> > the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user.
> >>> Just a maven
> >>>> > trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE
> >>>> supports
> >>>> > it without any issue.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > - Romain
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already
> >>> confusing, with
> >>>> it's
> >>>> >> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't
> >>> help with
> >>>> >> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>> Mark,
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create
> >>> a module
> >>>> simply
> >>>> >>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> - Romain
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>> Romain, Arne.
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should
> >>> push into
> >>>> which
> >>>> >>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
> >>>> >>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and
> >>> are just 30
> >>>> >>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api +
> >>> impl each)
> >>>> >> might
> >>>> >>>> really be too much!
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>> LieGrue,
> >>>> >>>> strub
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>> >>>>> From: Arne Limburg
> >>> <ar...@openknowledge.de>
> >>>> >>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> >>> <
> >>>> >>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
> >>>> >>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> >>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> >>>> >>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
> >>>> >>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> >>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be
> >>> pushed in
> >>>> >> another
> >>>> >>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think
> >>> allowing
> >>>> users
> >>>> >> to
> >>>> >>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is
> >>> a great
> >>>> >> feature.
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> - Romain
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug
> >>> <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of
> >>> modules. As a
> >>>> user I
> >>>> >>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x
> >>> dependencies, those POMs
> >>>> >>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on
> >>> the amount of
> >>>> features
> >>>> >>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well
> >>> fall into the
> >>>> >>>>>> "decent size" category.
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very
> >>> convenient when using
> >>>> >>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored
> >>> procs, obviously
> >>>> JPA
> >>>> >>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the
> >>> Home API in a
> >>>> >>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite
> >>> handy for
> >>>> prototyping.
> >>>> >>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API
> >>> (and create e.g. a
> >>>> >>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>> >>>>>> Tom
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> >>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> >>>> >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> >>>> >>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very
> >>> beginning, and we all
> >>>> >>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing
> >>> a new module:
> >>>> >>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like
> >>> jta, jpa, jsf)
> >>>> >>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and
> >>> has a decent size
> >>>> (min
> >>>> >>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more
> >>> than 10 classes yet, I do
> >>>> >>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for
> >>> them.
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we
> >>> have a new API or
> >>>> not.
> >>>> >>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead
> >>> anyway. EE-6 gave us
> >>>> much
> >>>> >>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and
> >>> not fall back to
> >>>> _old_
> >>>> >>>> EE patterns.
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the
> >>> 'jta' module would better
> >>>> >>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only
> >>> contain JTA but also
> >>>> >>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> LieGrue,
> >>>> >>>>>> strub
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> >>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> <rm...@gmail.com>
> >>>> >>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> >>>>>>> Cc:
> >>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> >>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>> +1
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>> - Romain
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek
> >>> <ge...@gmail.com>
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>> @ pete:
> >>>> >>>>>>>> +1
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained
> >>> structure (similar to
> >>>> seam3).
> >>>> >>>>>>>> e.g.:
> >>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> >>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
> >>>> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>> regards,
> >>>> >>>>>>>> gerhard
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir
> >>> <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good
> >>> use cases for the
> >>>> >>>> ServiceHandler.
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to
> >>> DS core, now we have a
> >>>> >>>>>>>> strong
> >>>> >>>>>>> use
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> case.
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Property util should not be
> >>> controversial. Maybe we can improve
> >>>> >>>>>>> it's API
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little
> >>> early, but it's already on
> >>>> >>>>>>> the radar:
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly
> >>> depends on the Solder
> >>>> >>>>>>> ServiceHandler
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS,
> >>> waiting for CDI 1.1) and
> >>>> >>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tom
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg
> >>> [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
> >>>> >>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
> >>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add
> >>> them!
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the
> >>> deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> strub
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir
> >>> <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
> >>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012
> >>> 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
> >>>> >>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >>
> >>> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56,
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a
> >>> spring-data CDI oriented).
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on
> >>> solder but since DS integrates a
> >>>> >>>>>>> lot of this
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> stuff
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be
> >>> integrated in DS in a really
> >>>> >>>>>>> portable way?
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Ok, I understand that point. Would it be fine to just have them in separated packages?
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>To: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>; deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:53 PM
>Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
>
>Not really, myfaces is not here.
>And you are as bas as me wanting to impose your view Mark.
>One jar by purpose is easier to maintain or patch too...one jar by class is a pain.
>On the ee/jee i think it is important to split to ease people to understand what they use.
>- Romain
>Le 27 juin 2012 19:24, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
>
>This is a perfectly bad example! With this shaded jar you cannot easily upgrade single projects like MyFaces to a newer version...
>>
>>LieGrue,
>>strub
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:22 PM
>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>
>>> javaee-api in openejb for instance:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/javaee-api/pom.xml
>>>
>>> - Romain
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>
>>>> Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever
>>> seen
>>>> it be a good approach for frameworks.
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part
>>> of
>>>> > the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user.
>>> Just a maven
>>>> > trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE
>>>> supports
>>>> > it without any issue.
>>>> >
>>>> > - Romain
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>> >
>>>> >> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already
>>> confusing, with
>>>> it's
>>>> >> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't
>>> help with
>>>> >> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Mark,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create
>>> a module
>>>> simply
>>>> >>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> - Romain
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Romain, Arne.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should
>>> push into
>>>> which
>>>> >>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
>>>> >>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and
>>> are just 30
>>>> >>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api +
>>> impl each)
>>>> >> might
>>>> >>>> really be too much!
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> LieGrue,
>>>> >>>> strub
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> ________________________________
>>>> >>>>> From: Arne Limburg
>>> <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>>>> >>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <
>>>> >>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>>>> >>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> >>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>>>> >>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>>>> >>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> >>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be
>>> pushed in
>>>> >> another
>>>> >>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think
>>> allowing
>>>> users
>>>> >> to
>>>> >>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is
>>> a great
>>>> >> feature.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> - Romain
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug
>>> <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of
>>> modules. As a
>>>> user I
>>>> >>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x
>>> dependencies, those POMs
>>>> >>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on
>>> the amount of
>>>> features
>>>> >>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well
>>> fall into the
>>>> >>>>>> "decent size" category.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very
>>> convenient when using
>>>> >>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored
>>> procs, obviously
>>>> JPA
>>>> >>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the
>>> Home API in a
>>>> >>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite
>>> handy for
>>>> prototyping.
>>>> >>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API
>>> (and create e.g. a
>>>> >>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>>>> >>>>>> Tom
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>>>> >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>>>> >>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very
>>> beginning, and we all
>>>> >>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing
>>> a new module:
>>>> >>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like
>>> jta, jpa, jsf)
>>>> >>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and
>>> has a decent size
>>>> (min
>>>> >>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more
>>> than 10 classes yet, I do
>>>> >>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for
>>> them.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we
>>> have a new API or
>>>> not.
>>>> >>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead
>>> anyway. EE-6 gave us
>>>> much
>>>> >>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and
>>> not fall back to
>>>> _old_
>>>> >>>> EE patterns.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the
>>> 'jta' module would better
>>>> >>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only
>>> contain JTA but also
>>>> >>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> >>>>>> strub
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> >>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> >>>>>>> Cc:
>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> +1
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> - Romain
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek
>>> <ge...@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> @ pete:
>>>> >>>>>>>> +1
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained
>>> structure (similar to
>>>> seam3).
>>>> >>>>>>>> e.g.:
>>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>>>> >>>>>>>> ...
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> regards,
>>>> >>>>>>>> gerhard
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir
>>> <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good
>>> use cases for the
>>>> >>>> ServiceHandler.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to
>>> DS core, now we have a
>>>> >>>>>>>> strong
>>>> >>>>>>> use
>>>> >>>>>>>>> case.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Property util should not be
>>> controversial. Maybe we can improve
>>>> >>>>>>> it's API
>>>> >>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug
>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little
>>> early, but it's already on
>>>> >>>>>>> the radar:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly
>>> depends on the Solder
>>>> >>>>>>> ServiceHandler
>>>> >>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS,
>>> waiting for CDI 1.1) and
>>>> >>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg
>>> [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>>>> >>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add
>>> them!
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the
>>> deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> strub
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir
>>> <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>>>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012
>>> 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>>>> >>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >>
>>> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56,
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a
>>> spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on
>>> solder but since DS integrates a
>>>> >>>>>>> lot of this
>>>> >>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be
>>> integrated in DS in a really
>>>> >>>>>>> portable way?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Not really, myfaces is not here.
And you are as bas as me wanting to impose your view Mark.
One jar by purpose is easier to maintain or patch too...one jar by class is
a pain.
On the ee/jee i think it is important to split to ease people to understand
what they use.
- Romain
Le 27 juin 2012 19:24, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> This is a perfectly bad example! With this shaded jar you cannot easily
> upgrade single projects like MyFaces to a newer version...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >
> > javaee-api in openejb for instance:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/javaee-api/pom.xml
> >
> > - Romain
> >
> >
> > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >
> >> Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever
> > seen
> >> it be a good approach for frameworks.
> >>
> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>
> >> > @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part
> > of
> >> > the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user.
> > Just a maven
> >> > trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE
> >> supports
> >> > it without any issue.
> >> >
> >> > - Romain
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >> >
> >> >> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already
> > confusing, with
> >> it's
> >> >> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't
> > help with
> >> >> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Mark,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create
> > a module
> >> simply
> >> >>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Romain
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Romain, Arne.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should
> > push into
> >> which
> >> >>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
> >> >>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and
> > are just 30
> >> >>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api +
> > impl each)
> >> >> might
> >> >>>> really be too much!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> LieGrue,
> >> >>>> strub
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> ________________________________
> >> >>>>> From: Arne Limburg
> > <ar...@openknowledge.de>
> >> >>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > <
> >> >>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> >> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
> >> >>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> >>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> >> >>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
> >> >>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be
> > pushed in
> >> >> another
> >> >>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think
> > allowing
> >> users
> >> >> to
> >> >>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is
> > a great
> >> >> feature.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> - Romain
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug
> > <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of
> > modules. As a
> >> user I
> >> >>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x
> > dependencies, those POMs
> >> >>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on
> > the amount of
> >> features
> >> >>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well
> > fall into the
> >> >>>>>> "decent size" category.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very
> > convenient when using
> >> >>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored
> > procs, obviously
> >> JPA
> >> >>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the
> > Home API in a
> >> >>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite
> > handy for
> >> prototyping.
> >> >>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API
> > (and create e.g. a
> >> >>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >> >>>>>> Tom
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> >> >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> >> >>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very
> > beginning, and we all
> >> >>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing
> > a new module:
> >> >>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like
> > jta, jpa, jsf)
> >> >>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and
> > has a decent size
> >> (min
> >> >>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more
> > than 10 classes yet, I do
> >> >>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for
> > them.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we
> > have a new API or
> >> not.
> >> >>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead
> > anyway. EE-6 gave us
> >> much
> >> >>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and
> > not fall back to
> >> _old_
> >> >>>> EE patterns.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the
> > 'jta' module would better
> >> >>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only
> > contain JTA but also
> >> >>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> LieGrue,
> >> >>>>>> strub
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
> > <rm...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >>>>>>> Cc:
> >> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> - Romain
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek
> > <ge...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> @ pete:
> >> >>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained
> > structure (similar to
> >> seam3).
> >> >>>>>>>> e.g.:
> >> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> >> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
> >> >>>>>>>> ...
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> regards,
> >> >>>>>>>> gerhard
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir
> > <pm...@redhat.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good
> > use cases for the
> >> >>>> ServiceHandler.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to
> > DS core, now we have a
> >> >>>>>>>> strong
> >> >>>>>>> use
> >> >>>>>>>>> case.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Property util should not be
> > controversial. Maybe we can improve
> >> >>>>>>> it's API
> >> >>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug
> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little
> > early, but it's already on
> >> >>>>>>> the radar:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly
> > depends on the Solder
> >> >>>>>>> ServiceHandler
> >> >>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS,
> > waiting for CDI 1.1) and
> >> >>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Tom
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > ________________________________________
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg
> > [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
> >> >>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
> > deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add
> > them!
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the
> > deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> strub
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir
> > <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
> >> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012
> > 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
> >> >>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >>
> > IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56,
> > Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a
> > spring-data CDI oriented).
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on
> > solder but since DS integrates a
> >> >>>>>>> lot of this
> >> >>>>>>>>> stuff
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be
> > integrated in DS in a really
> >> >>>>>>> portable way?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
This is a perfectly bad example! With this shaded jar you cannot easily upgrade single projects like MyFaces to a newer version...
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> javaee-api in openejb for instance:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/javaee-api/pom.xml
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>
>> Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever
> seen
>> it be a good approach for frameworks.
>>
>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> > @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part
> of
>> > the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user.
> Just a maven
>> > trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE
>> supports
>> > it without any issue.
>> >
>> > - Romain
>> >
>> >
>> > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>> >
>> >> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already
> confusing, with
>> it's
>> >> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't
> help with
>> >> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
>> >>
>> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Mark,
>> >>>
>> >>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create
> a module
>> simply
>> >>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Romain
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Romain, Arne.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should
> push into
>> which
>> >>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
>> >>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and
> are just 30
>> >>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api +
> impl each)
>> >> might
>> >>>> really be too much!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>> strub
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> ________________________________
>> >>>>> From: Arne Limburg
> <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>> >>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> <
>> >>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>> >>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> >>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>> >>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>> >>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be
> pushed in
>> >> another
>> >>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think
> allowing
>> users
>> >> to
>> >>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is
> a great
>> >> feature.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> - Romain
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug
> <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of
> modules. As a
>> user I
>> >>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x
> dependencies, those POMs
>> >>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on
> the amount of
>> features
>> >>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well
> fall into the
>> >>>>>> "decent size" category.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very
> convenient when using
>> >>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored
> procs, obviously
>> JPA
>> >>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the
> Home API in a
>> >>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite
> handy for
>> prototyping.
>> >>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API
> (and create e.g. a
>> >>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>> Tom
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>> >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>> >>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very
> beginning, and we all
>> >>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing
> a new module:
>> >>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like
> jta, jpa, jsf)
>> >>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and
> has a decent size
>> (min
>> >>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more
> than 10 classes yet, I do
>> >>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for
> them.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we
> have a new API or
>> not.
>> >>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead
> anyway. EE-6 gave us
>> much
>> >>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and
> not fall back to
>> _old_
>> >>>> EE patterns.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the
> 'jta' module would better
>> >>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only
> contain JTA but also
>> >>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>>>> strub
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>>>> Cc:
>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - Romain
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek
> <ge...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> @ pete:
>> >>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained
> structure (similar to
>> seam3).
>> >>>>>>>> e.g.:
>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>> >>>>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> regards,
>> >>>>>>>> gerhard
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir
> <pm...@redhat.com>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good
> use cases for the
>> >>>> ServiceHandler.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to
> DS core, now we have a
>> >>>>>>>> strong
>> >>>>>>> use
>> >>>>>>>>> case.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Property util should not be
> controversial. Maybe we can improve
>> >>>>>>> it's API
>> >>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug
> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little
> early, but it's already on
>> >>>>>>> the radar:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly
> depends on the Solder
>> >>>>>>> ServiceHandler
>> >>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS,
> waiting for CDI 1.1) and
>> >>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>>>> Tom
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
> ________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg
> [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>> >>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add
> them!
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the
> deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>>>>>>>> strub
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir
> <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012
> 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>> >>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >>
> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56,
> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
>> >>>>>>>>>
> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a
> spring-data CDI oriented).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on
> solder but since DS integrates a
>> >>>>>>> lot of this
>> >>>>>>>>> stuff
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be
> integrated in DS in a really
>> >>>>>>> portable way?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
javaee-api in openejb for instance:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/javaee-api/pom.xml
- Romain
2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever seen
> it be a good approach for frameworks.
>
> On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> > @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part of
> > the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user. Just a maven
> > trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE
> supports
> > it without any issue.
> >
> > - Romain
> >
> >
> > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >
> >> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing, with
> it's
> >> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help with
> >> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
> >>
> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mark,
> >>>
> >>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module
> simply
> >>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
> >>>
> >>> - Romain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >>>
> >>>> Romain, Arne.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into
> which
> >>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
> >>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just 30
> >>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each)
> >> might
> >>>> really be too much!
> >>>>
> >>>> LieGrue,
> >>>> strub
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
> >>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
> >>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
> >>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> >>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
> >>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in
> >> another
> >>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing
> users
> >> to
> >>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great
> >> feature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Romain
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a
> user I
> >>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs
> >>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of
> features
> >>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the
> >>>>>> "decent size" category.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
> >>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously
> JPA
> >>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
> >>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for
> prototyping.
> >>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a
> >>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> >>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
> >>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> >>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> >>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size
> (min
> >>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do
> >>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or
> not.
> >>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us
> much
> >>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to
> _old_
> >>>> EE patterns.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
> >>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> >>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LieGrue,
> >>>>>> strub
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>> Cc:
> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Romain
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> @ pete:
> >>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to
> seam3).
> >>>>>>>> e.g.:
> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> regards,
> >>>>>>>> gerhard
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
> >>>> ServiceHandler.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
> >>>>>>>> strong
> >>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>> case.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> >>>>>>> it's API
> >>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> >>>>>>> the radar:
> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> >>>>>>> ServiceHandler
> >>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
> >>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
> >>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> >>>>>>>>>> strub
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
> >>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
> >>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
> >>>>>>>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> >>>>>>> lot of this
> >>>>>>>>> stuff
> >>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> >>>>>>> portable way?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
It works, but is a PITA to maintain!
There are of course small issues with JavaDocs and Sources if it gets more complicated ...
Shading is only the ultimo ratio and shall only be used to slice modules because they would introduce another dependency.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:19 PM
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever seen
> it be a good approach for frameworks.
>
> On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>> @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part of
>> the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user. Just a
> maven
>> trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE supports
>> it without any issue.
>>
>> - Romain
>>
>>
>> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>
>>> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing,
> with it's
>>> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help
> with
>>> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
>>>
>>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark,
>>>>
>>>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a
> module simply
>>>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
>>>>
>>>> - Romain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>
>>>>> Romain, Arne.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push
> into which
>>>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
>>>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are
> just 30
>>>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl
> each)
>>> might
>>>>> really be too much!
>>>>>
>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>> strub
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>>>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>>>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>>>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be
> pushed in
>>> another
>>>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think
> allowing users
>>> to
>>>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a
> great
>>> feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of
> modules. As a user I
>>>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x
> dependencies, those POMs
>>>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the
> amount of features
>>>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall
> into the
>>>>>>> "decent size" category.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient
> when using
>>>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored
> procs, obviously JPA
>>>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home
> API in a
>>>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy
> for prototyping.
>>>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and
> create e.g. a
>>>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>>>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very
> beginning, and we all
>>>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a
> new module:
>>>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta,
> jpa, jsf)
>>>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a
> decent size (min
>>>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10
> classes yet, I do
>>>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a
> new API or not.
>>>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway.
> EE-6 gave us much
>>>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not
> fall back to _old_
>>>>> EE patterns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the
> 'jta' module would better
>>>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain
> JTA but also
>>>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek
> <ge...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @ pete:
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained
> structure (similar to seam3).
>>>>>>>>> e.g.:
>>>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>>>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use
> cases for the
>>>>> ServiceHandler.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS
> core, now we have a
>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial.
> Maybe we can improve
>>>>>>>> it's API
>>>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early,
> but it's already on
>>>>>>>> the radar:
>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly
> depends on the Solder
>>>>>>>> ServiceHandler
>>>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS,
> waiting for CDI 1.1) and
>>>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
>> > Gesendet: Montag,
>>>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the
> deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir
> <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>>>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53
> PM > >> Subject: Re:
>>>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO
> this would be a great thing to add!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain
> Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
>>>>>>>>>>
> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a
> spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder
> but since DS integrates a
>>>>>>>> lot of this
>>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be
> integrated in DS in a really
>>>>>>>> portable way?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
Do you have some good examples of shade working well, I've never ever seen it be a good approach for frameworks.
On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part of
> the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user. Just a maven
> trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE supports
> it without any issue.
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>
>> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing, with it's
>> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help with
>> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
>>
>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module simply
>>> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
>>>
>>> - Romain
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>
>>>> Romain, Arne.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into which
>>>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
>>>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just 30
>>>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each)
>> might
>>>> really be too much!
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
>>>>>
>>>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>
>>>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in
>> another
>>>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users
>> to
>>>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great
>> feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I
>>>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs
>>>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features
>>>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the
>>>>>> "decent size" category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
>>>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA
>>>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
>>>>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping.
>>>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a
>>>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
>>>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
>>>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
>>>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
>>>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do
>>>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not.
>>>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much
>>>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_
>>>> EE patterns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
>>>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
>>>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @ pete:
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
>>>>>>>> e.g.:
>>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>>>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
>>>> ServiceHandler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
>>>>>>> it's API
>>>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
>>>>>>> the radar:
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
>>>>>>> ServiceHandler
>>>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
>>>>>>>> the Property > utils.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>>>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>>>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>>>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
>>>>>>>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
>>>>>>> lot of this
>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
>>>>>>> portable way?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Romain, this is really almost impossible to maintain if you split the stuff too much!
A lot of things are depending on each others. I see absolutely no sense to exclude stuff which works perfectly fine in SE and EE just because you would not use it. This are 5 classes so far - just don't use them and they wont hurt you :)
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:17 PM
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part of
> the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user. Just a
> maven
> trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE supports
> it without any issue.
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>
>> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing, with
> it's
>> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help with
>> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
>>
>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> > Mark,
>> >
>> > what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module
> simply
>> > for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
>> >
>> > - Romain
>> >
>> >
>> > 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> >
>> >> Romain, Arne.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into
> which
>> >> module. Any suggestion is welcome
>> >> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just
> 30
>> >> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl
> each)
>> might
>> >> really be too much!
>> >>
>> >> LieGrue,
>> >> strub
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> ________________________________
>> >>> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>> >>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
>> >> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>> >>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
>> >>>
>> >>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> >>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>> >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>> >>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>
>> >>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed
> in
>> another
>> >> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing
> users
>> to
>> >> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great
>> feature.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Romain
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>> >>>
>> >>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules.
> As a user I
>> >>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x
> dependencies, those POMs
>> >>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount
> of features
>> >>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall
> into the
>> >>>> "decent size" category.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient
> when using
>> >>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs,
> obviously JPA
>> >>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home
> API in a
>> >>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for
> prototyping.
>> >>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and
> create e.g. a
>> >>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>> Tom
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>> >>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>> >>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning,
> and we all
>> >>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new
> module:
>> >>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta,
> jpa, jsf)
>> >>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a
> decent size (min
>> >>>> ~30..50 new classes)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10
> classes yet, I do
>> >>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new
> API or not.
>> >>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6
> gave us much
>> >>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall
> back to _old_
>> >> EE patterns.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta'
> module would better
>> >>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain
> JTA but also
>> >>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>> strub
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>> Cc:
>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> - Romain
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek
> <ge...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> @ pete:
>> >>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure
> (similar to seam3).
>> >>>>>> e.g.:
>> >>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>> >>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>> >>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> regards,
>> >>>>>> gerhard
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases
> for the
>> >> ServiceHandler.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core,
> now we have a
>> >>>>>> strong
>> >>>>> use
>> >>>>>>> case.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial.
> Maybe we can improve
>> >>>>> it's API
>> >>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early,
> but it's already on
>> >>>>> the radar:
>> >>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends
> on the Solder
>> >>>>> ServiceHandler
>> >>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting
> for CDI 1.1) and
>> >>>>>> the Property > utils.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>> Tom
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
>> > Gesendet: Montag,
>> >>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An:
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> That would fit great into the
> deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>> >>>>>>>> strub
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir
> <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>> >>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>> Cc:
>> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
>> >> Subject: Re:
>> >>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this
> would be a great thing to add!
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain
> Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> just browsed
>> >>>>>>>
> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>> >>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a
> spring-data CDI oriented).
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder
> but since DS integrates a
>> >>>>> lot of this
>> >>>>>>> stuff
>> >>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated
> in DS in a really
>> >>>>> portable way?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> - Romain
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part of
the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user. Just a maven
trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE supports
it without any issue.
- Romain
2012/6/27 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing, with it's
> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help with
> DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
>
> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module simply
> > for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
> >
> > - Romain
> >
> >
> > 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >
> >> Romain, Arne.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into which
> >> module. Any suggestion is welcome
> >> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just 30
> >> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each)
> might
> >> really be too much!
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
> >>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
> >> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
> >>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
> >>>
> >>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
> >>>
> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
> >>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >>>
> >>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in
> another
> >> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users
> to
> >> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great
> feature.
> >>>
> >>> - Romain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
> >>>
> >>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I
> >>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs
> >>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features
> >>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the
> >>>> "decent size" category.
> >>>>
> >>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
> >>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA
> >>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
> >>>>
> >>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
> >>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping.
> >>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a
> >>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Tom
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> >>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> >>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>>>
> >>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
> >>>>
> >>>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
> >>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> >>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> >>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
> >>>> ~30..50 new classes)
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do
> >>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not.
> >>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much
> >>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_
> >> EE patterns.
> >>>>
> >>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
> >>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> >>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> LieGrue,
> >>>> strub
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>> Cc:
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Romain
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> @ pete:
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
> >>>>>> e.g.:
> >>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> >>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> regards,
> >>>>>> gerhard
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
> >> ServiceHandler.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
> >>>>>> strong
> >>>>> use
> >>>>>>> case.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> >>>>> it's API
> >>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> >>>>> the radar:
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> >>>>> ServiceHandler
> >>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
> >>>>>> the Property > utils.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
> >>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> >>>>>>>> strub
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
> >>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> Cc:
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
> >>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> just browsed
> >>>>>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> >>>>> lot of this
> >>>>>>> stuff
> >>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> >>>>> portable way?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Romain
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing, with it's hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help with DeltaSpike adoption IMO.
On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Mark,
>
> what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module simply
> for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
>> Romain, Arne.
>>
>>
>> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into which
>> module. Any suggestion is welcome
>> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just 30
>> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each) might
>> really be too much!
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>>> Subject: AW: cdi-query
>>>
>>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>
>>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in another
>> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users to
>> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great feature.
>>>
>>> - Romain
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>>>
>>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I
>>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs
>>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features
>>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the
>>>> "decent size" category.
>>>>
>>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
>>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA
>>>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>>>>
>>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
>>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping.
>>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a
>>>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>>
>>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>>>>
>>>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
>>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
>>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
>>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
>>>> ~30..50 new classes)
>>>>
>>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do
>>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>>>>
>>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not.
>>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much
>>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_
>> EE patterns.
>>>>
>>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
>>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
>>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> @ pete:
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
>>>>>> e.g.:
>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
>> ServiceHandler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
>>>>>> strong
>>>>> use
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
>>>>> it's API
>>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
>>>>> the radar:
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
>>>>> ServiceHandler
>>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
>>>>>> the Property > utils.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>>>>>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> just browsed
>>>>>>> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
>>>>> lot of this
>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
>>>>> portable way?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: AW: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Mark,
what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module simply
for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
- Romain
2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Romain, Arne.
>
>
> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into which
> module. Any suggestion is welcome
> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just 30
> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each) might
> really be too much!
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
> >To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
> >Subject: AW: cdi-query
> >
> >I completely agree with Romain on that topic
> >
> >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
> >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
> >An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >
> >Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in another
> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users to
> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great feature.
> >
> >- Romain
> >
> >
> >2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
> >
> >> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I
> >> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs
> >> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features
> >> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the
> >> "decent size" category.
> >>
> >> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
> >> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA
> >> queries or a JAX-RS client).
> >>
> >> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
> >> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping.
> >> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a
> >> Forge scaffolding provider?).
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> >> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>
> >> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
> >>
> >> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
> >> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> >> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> >> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
> >> ~30..50 new classes)
> >>
> >> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do
> >> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
> >>
> >> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not.
> >> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much
> >> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_
> EE patterns.
> >>
> >> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
> >> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> >> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
> >>
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> >> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Cc:
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > - Romain
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >> >
> >> >> @ pete:
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> >> >>
> >> >> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
> >> >> e.g.:
> >> >> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> >> >> deltaspike-jpa-query
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> regards,
> >> >> gerhard
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the
> ServiceHandler.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
> >> >> strong
> >> > use
> >> >> > case.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> >> > it's API
> >> >> > whilst we are at it :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> >> > the radar:
> >> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> >> > ServiceHandler
> >> >> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
> >> >> the Property > utils.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Cheers,
> >> >> > > Tom
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > ________________________________________
> >> >> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
> >> >> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > LieGrue,
> >> >> > > strub
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
> >> >> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > >> Cc:
> >> >> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
> >> >> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> Hi,
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> just browsed
> >> >> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >> >> > >> and
> >> >> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> >> > lot of this
> >> >> > stuff
> >> >> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> >> > portable way?
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> - Romain
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: AW: cdi-query
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Romain, Arne.
Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into which module. Any suggestion is welcome
I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just 30 classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each) might really be too much!
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
>To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM
>Subject: AW: cdi-query
>
>I completely agree with Romain on that topic
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
>An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>
>Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in another thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users to take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great feature.
>
>- Romain
>
>
>2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
>
>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I
>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs
>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features
>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the
>> "decent size" category.
>>
>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA
>> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>>
>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping.
>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a
>> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>
>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>>
>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
>> ~30..50 new classes)
>>
>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do
>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>>
>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not.
>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much
>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE patterns.
>>
>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
>> > Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > - Romain
>> >
>> >
>> > 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >> @ pete:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>> >>
>> >> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
>> >> e.g.:
>> >> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>> >> deltaspike-jpa-query
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >> gerhard
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>> >>
>> >> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
>> >> strong
>> > use
>> >> > case.
>> >> >
>> >> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
>> > it's API
>> >> > whilst we are at it :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
>> > the radar:
>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
>> > ServiceHandler
>> >> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
>> >> the Property > utils.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cheers,
>> >> > > Tom
>> >> > >
>> >> > > ________________________________________
>> >> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>> >> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> >> > >
>> >> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > LieGrue,
>> >> > > strub
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>> >> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > >> Cc:
>> >> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>> >> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>> Hi,
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> just browsed
>> >> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>> >> > >> and
>> >> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
>> > lot of this
>> >> > stuff
>> >> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
>> > portable way?
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> - Romain
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
AW: cdi-query
Posted by Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>.
I completely agree with Romain on that topic
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: cdi-query
Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in another thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users to take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great feature.
- Romain
2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I
> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs
> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features
> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the
> "decent size" category.
>
> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using
> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA
> queries or a JAX-RS client).
>
> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping.
> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a
> Forge scaffolding provider?).
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>
> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
> ~30..50 new classes)
>
> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do
> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>
> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not.
> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much
> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE patterns.
>
> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >
> > +1
> >
> > - Romain
> >
> >
> > 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> @ pete:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> >>
> >> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
> >> e.g.:
> >> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> >> deltaspike-jpa-query
> >> ...
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
> >> >
> >> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
> >> strong
> > use
> >> > case.
> >> >
> >> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> > it's API
> >> > whilst we are at it :-)
> >> >
> >> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> > the radar:
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >> > >
> >> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> > ServiceHandler
> >> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and
> >> the Property > utils.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > > Tom
> >> > >
> >> > > ________________________________________
> >> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
> >> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >> > >
> >> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> >> > >
> >> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >> > >
> >> > > LieGrue,
> >> > > strub
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
> >> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > >> Cc:
> >> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
> >> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> just browsed
> >> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >> > >> and
> >> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> > lot of this
> >> > stuff
> >> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> > portable way?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> - Romain
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in another
thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users to
take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great feature.
- Romain
2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>
> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I
> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs are
> usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features
> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the "decent
> size" category.
>
> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using methods
> just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA queries or a
> JAX-RS client).
>
> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a
> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping. Could
> be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a Forge
> scaffolding provider?).
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
>
> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all
> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min
> ~30..50 new classes)
>
> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do not
> see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
>
> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. The
> classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much better
> possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE patterns.
>
> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better
> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also
> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >
> > +1
> >
> > - Romain
> >
> >
> > 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> @ pete:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
> >>
> >> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
> >> e.g.:
> >> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> >> deltaspike-jpa-query
> >> ...
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
> >> >
> >> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
> >> strong
> > use
> >> > case.
> >> >
> >> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> > it's API
> >> > whilst we are at it :-)
> >> >
> >> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> > the radar:
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >> > >
> >> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> > ServiceHandler
> >> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
> >> Property > utils.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > > Tom
> >> > >
> >> > > ________________________________________
> >> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
> >> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >> > >
> >> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> >> > >
> >> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >> > >
> >> > > LieGrue,
> >> > > strub
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
> >> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > >> Cc:
> >> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
> >> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> just browsed
> >> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >> > >> and
> >> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> > lot of this
> >> > stuff
> >> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> > portable way?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> - Romain
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
RE: cdi-query
Posted by Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>.
@Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the "decent size" category.
@Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA queries or a JAX-RS client).
@Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping. Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a Forge scaffolding provider?).
Cheers,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: cdi-query
I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
.) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
.) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min ~30..50 new classes)
Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE patterns.
What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> +1
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>
>> @ pete:
>> +1
>>
>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>
>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
>> e.g.:
>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>> ...
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>
>> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
>> >
>> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a
>> strong
> use
>> > case.
>> >
>> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> it's API
>> > whilst we are at it :-)
>> >
>> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>> >
>> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> the radar:
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>> > >
>> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> ServiceHandler
>> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
>> Property > utils.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Tom
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________________
>> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de] > > Gesendet: Montag,
>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> > >
>> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>> > >
>> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>> > >
>> > > LieGrue,
>> > > strub
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> To:
>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> Cc:
>> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re:
>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>> > >>
>> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> just browsed
>> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>> > >> and
>> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>> > >>>
>> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> lot of this
>> > stuff
>> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> portable way?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> - Romain
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I fear that would get us into jarmageddon...
We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module:
.) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf)
.) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min ~30..50 new classes)
Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do not see a reason for introducing a new API for them.
Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ EE patterns.
What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB?
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> +1
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>
>> @ pete:
>> +1
>>
>> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>>
>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
>> e.g.:
>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
>> deltaspike-jpa-query
>> ...
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>
>> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
>> >
>> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a strong
> use
>> > case.
>> >
>> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve
> it's API
>> > whilst we are at it :-)
>> >
>> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>> >
>> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on
> the radar:
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>> > >
>> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder
> ServiceHandler
>> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
>> Property
>> > utils.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Tom
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________________
>> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
>> > > Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2012 14:21
>> > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>> > >
>> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>> > >
>> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>> > >
>> > > LieGrue,
>> > > strub
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>> > >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> Cc:
>> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
>> > >> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>> > >>
>> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>> > >>
>> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> just browsed
>> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>> > >> and
>> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>> > >>>
>> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a
> lot of this
>> > stuff
>> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really
> portable way?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> - Romain
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+1
- Romain
2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> @ pete:
> +1
>
> @ java-se vs java-ee features:
>
> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
> e.g.:
> deltaspike-jpa-transaction
> deltaspike-jpa-query
> ...
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>
> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
> >
> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a strong use
> > case.
> >
> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve it's API
> > whilst we are at it :-)
> >
> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> >
> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on the radar:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> > >
> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder ServiceHandler
> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the
> Property
> > utils.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2012 14:21
> > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> > >
> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> > >
> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Cc:
> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> > >>
> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> > >>
> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> just browsed
> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> > >> and
> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> > >>>
> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this
> > stuff
> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
> > >>>
> > >>> - Romain
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
@ pete:
+1
@ java-se vs java-ee features:
we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3).
e.g.:
deltaspike-jpa-transaction
deltaspike-jpa-query
...
regards,
gerhard
2012/6/25 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
>
> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a strong use
> case.
>
> Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve it's API
> whilst we are at it :-)
>
> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
>
> > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on the radar:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
> >
> > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder ServiceHandler
> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the Property
> utils.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tom
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
> > Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2012 14:21
> > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: cdi-query
> >
> > +1 great stuff to review and add them!
> >
> > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> >> Subject: Re: cdi-query
> >>
> >> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
> >>
> >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> just browsed
> http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> >> and
> >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
> >>>
> >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this
> stuff
> >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
> >>>
> >>> - Romain
> >>
>
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the ServiceHandler.
I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a strong use case.
Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve it's API whilst we are at it :-)
On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote:
> Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on the radar:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
>
> The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder ServiceHandler (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the Property utils.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
> Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2012 14:21
> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: cdi-query
>
> +1 great stuff to review and add them!
>
> That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>>
>> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>>
>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> just browsed http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
>> and
>>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>>
>>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this stuff
>>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
>>>
>>> - Romain
>>
RE: cdi-query
Posted by Thomas Hug <Th...@ctp-consulting.com>.
Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on the radar:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60
The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder ServiceHandler (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and the Property utils.
Cheers,
Tom
________________________________________
Von: Mark Struberg [struberg@yahoo.de]
Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2012 14:21
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: cdi-query
+1 great stuff to review and add them!
That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>
> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> just browsed http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> and
>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>
>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this stuff
>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
>>
>> - Romain
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
+1 great stuff to review and add them!
That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt?
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM
> Subject: Re: cdi-query
>
> IMO this would be a great thing to add!
>
> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> just browsed http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html
> and
>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>>
>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this stuff
>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
>>
>> - Romain
>
Re: cdi-query
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
IMO this would be a great thing to add!
On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just browsed http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html and
> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented).
>
> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a lot of this stuff
> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really portable way?
>
> - Romain