You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tamaya.apache.org by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> on 2014/12/29 01:03:26 UTC
[DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Hi!
Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding @Priority or not.
It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
The question now is whether we can burden our users to add commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
LieGrue,
strub
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>.
Don't mix up
*@Priority* with the ordinal() method on
*PropertySource*. For property sources I think the method is the better
solution, since it can dynamically assigned, e.g. based on the file's
content. For more complex cases you also have the
*PropertySourceProvider*, which can register multiple
**
*PropertySource *instances. As a more complex examples see at the
following config file:
<config>
<defaults>
<a.b.c.value>MyValue</a.b.cValue>
</defaults>
<domainOverrides>
<myArea>
<myValue1>123</myValue1>
<myValue2>3434.56</myValue2>
</myArea>
<server>
<ip>1.2.3.4</ip>
<overrides>
<
a.b.c.value>anotherMyValue</a.b.c.value>
</overrides>
</server>
</domainOverrides>
</config>
Such a file cannot be mapped to a single
*PropertySource*, since it contains entries with differing priorites in
the same file (note: this is not a hypothetic example, I've seeen such
solutions multiple times). In that case we would implement a
*PropertySourceProvider *that parses the file, sorts the different entries
into corresponding collections and then returns a PropertySource for each
non empty list of entries. Such cases only can be solved by custom
implementations, but good news: this is the top of complexity in the basic
overriding area (e.g. Credit Suisse config, which is one of the most
complex I've seen so far, fits into this system quite well).
Nevertheless we can still support file paths etc, A file path then will
resolve to at least one PropertySource per file resolved, or even (as shown
above) to multiple property sources per file. In a big application like
Credit Suisse has, you will end up likely with 200 property sources at the
end. But this is not bad per se. For example we can access all property
sources a system consumes (also the ones with overriden entries) and that
way have a real traceability of what is happening (a very important aspect).
The @Priority is more meant for priorizing other registered services, for
example adapters, expressions resolvers etc.
-Anatole
Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mon Dec 29 2014 at
14:59:16:
> you are right if you expect N (N>>1) configurations. More I think to
> it more I guess we'll have very few providers/sources in practise.
> basically JVM ones (built-in like system properties + a default
> properties file) + a custom one. I wouldn't expect more (for
> maintenance, simplicity and understanding of the system). In this case
> priority works. That said nothing prevents you to extend
> BasicPropertyProviderImpl to specify another priority if needed but if
> you have multiple file you surely dont put the same thing inside. So
> is it a real issue?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2014-12-29 14:52 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> > On Mon Dec 29 2014 at 8:06:07 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> provided impl can have a hardcoded priority so not an issue (finally
> >> @Priority value is stored in a map or any data structure and never
> >> used directly so we can directly do it for internal impls)
> >>
> >
> > Right, but then if I have two instances of (say
> BasicPropertyProviderImpl)
> > that look at two different files, they'll end up with the same priority.
> >
> > I just don't think the priority annotation works well here.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-12-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>:
> >> > It depends, whether you need an extra annotation in that case.
> >> > Sometimes a good old numeric priority could also do.
> >> >
> >> > Werner
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 7:06:22 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it
> adding
> >> >> > @Priority or not.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Depends on what issue you're trying to solve. If it's to assign
> >> priority
> >> >> to a config source, it probably wouldn't work since some of the impls
> >> are
> >> >> provided by tamaya.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
> >> >> > downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default.
> Of
> >> >> > course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
> >> >> > commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LieGrue,
> >> >> > strub
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
you are right if you expect N (N>>1) configurations. More I think to
it more I guess we'll have very few providers/sources in practise.
basically JVM ones (built-in like system properties + a default
properties file) + a custom one. I wouldn't expect more (for
maintenance, simplicity and understanding of the system). In this case
priority works. That said nothing prevents you to extend
BasicPropertyProviderImpl to specify another priority if needed but if
you have multiple file you surely dont put the same thing inside. So
is it a real issue?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-29 14:52 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> On Mon Dec 29 2014 at 8:06:07 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> provided impl can have a hardcoded priority so not an issue (finally
>> @Priority value is stored in a map or any data structure and never
>> used directly so we can directly do it for internal impls)
>>
>
> Right, but then if I have two instances of (say BasicPropertyProviderImpl)
> that look at two different files, they'll end up with the same priority.
>
> I just don't think the priority annotation works well here.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>:
>> > It depends, whether you need an extra annotation in that case.
>> > Sometimes a good old numeric priority could also do.
>> >
>> > Werner
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 7:06:22 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi!
>> >> >
>> >> > Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
>> >> > @Priority or not.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Depends on what issue you're trying to solve. If it's to assign
>> priority
>> >> to a config source, it probably wouldn't work since some of the impls
>> are
>> >> provided by tamaya.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
>> >> > downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
>> >> > course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
>> >> >
>> >> > The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
>> >> > commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
>> >> >
>> >> > LieGrue,
>> >> > strub
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Mon Dec 29 2014 at 8:06:07 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> provided impl can have a hardcoded priority so not an issue (finally
> @Priority value is stored in a map or any data structure and never
> used directly so we can directly do it for internal impls)
>
Right, but then if I have two instances of (say BasicPropertyProviderImpl)
that look at two different files, they'll end up with the same priority.
I just don't think the priority annotation works well here.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2014-12-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>:
> > It depends, whether you need an extra annotation in that case.
> > Sometimes a good old numeric priority could also do.
> >
> > Werner
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 7:06:22 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
> >> > @Priority or not.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Depends on what issue you're trying to solve. If it's to assign
> priority
> >> to a config source, it probably wouldn't work since some of the impls
> are
> >> provided by tamaya.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
> >> > downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
> >> > course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
> >> >
> >> > The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
> >> > commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
> >> >
> >> > LieGrue,
> >> > strub
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
provided impl can have a hardcoded priority so not an issue (finally
@Priority value is stored in a map or any data structure and never
used directly so we can directly do it for internal impls)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>:
> It depends, whether you need an extra annotation in that case.
> Sometimes a good old numeric priority could also do.
>
> Werner
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 7:06:22 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
>> > @Priority or not.
>> >
>>
>> Depends on what issue you're trying to solve. If it's to assign priority
>> to a config source, it probably wouldn't work since some of the impls are
>> provided by tamaya.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
>> > downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
>> > course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
>> >
>> > The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
>> > commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
>> >
>> > LieGrue,
>> > strub
>> >
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
It depends, whether you need an extra annotation in that case.
Sometimes a good old numeric priority could also do.
Werner
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 7:06:22 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
> > @Priority or not.
> >
>
> Depends on what issue you're trying to solve. If it's to assign priority
> to a config source, it probably wouldn't work since some of the impls are
> provided by tamaya.
>
>
> >
> > It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
> > downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
> > course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
> >
> > The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
> > commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 7:06:22 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
> @Priority or not.
>
Depends on what issue you're trying to solve. If it's to assign priority
to a config source, it probably wouldn't work since some of the impls are
provided by tamaya.
>
> It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
> downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
> course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
>
> The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
> commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
You may consider it "optional" if it's not used by mandatory core
components.
That's pretty much done with @Inject except EE/CDI baked it into the very
foundation, so it's pretty mandatory there.
Newer JSRs like 361 or 363 declare optionality even on a package/bundle
level, but so far the older ones mean you use 1 annotation, you take the
whole JAR. Which is tiny, so I'd rather reuse it than reinvent the wheel;-)
Werner
Am 29.12.2014 09:56 schrieb "Gerhard Petracek" <ge...@gmail.com>:
> +1 for using @Priority (just because it's there already and users will be
> used to it)
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2014-12-29 8:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>
> > JSR-250 is not EE but SE. So it is perfectly fine to just use that.
> >
> > Doing some 'private' javax packages is not allowed by the JCP.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 29 December 2014, 7:11, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >We can also rely on an intermediate version doing a tamaya-javax which
> > would be provided for ee and imported for se. We would copy on needed
> > classes.
> > >Benefit would be to stay aligned on EE and avoid introducity new api
> > without having to bring the whole jar if too big compared to our usage.
> > >Le 29 déc. 2014 01:39, "Werner Keil" <we...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > >Well JSR-330 is not part of SE either;-)
> > >>
> > >>If we're lucky Java SE 9 brings a more modular approach also to adding
> > such
> > >>pieces without the whole EE stack, but until then a JAR that (in Maven)
> > >>isn't more than 2x the 3 kb of JSR 330 does not sound like a great
> burden
> > >>to me.
> > >>
> > >>Werner
> > >>
> > >>On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi!
> > >>>
> > >>> Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
> > >>> @Priority or not.
> > >>>
> > >>> It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
> > >>> downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
> > >>> course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
> > >>>
> > >>> The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
> > >>> commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
> > >>>
> > >>> LieGrue,
> > >>> strub
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
there is no issue using EE or SE. Only constraint is to be able to get
rid of it in EE (ie dont put it in tamaya-core if anyone had a doubt
;)). About javax private package I'm not sure (actually sure of the
oppposite). If we use only this annotation we can do a jar with it
only if jsr250 jar is an issue cause bringing too much classes -
thought it was the point, if not just ignore it.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-29 9:53 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
> +1 for using @Priority (just because it's there already and users will be
> used to it)
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2014-12-29 8:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>
>> JSR-250 is not EE but SE. So it is perfectly fine to just use that.
>>
>> Doing some 'private' javax packages is not allowed by the JCP.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 29 December 2014, 7:11, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >We can also rely on an intermediate version doing a tamaya-javax which
>> would be provided for ee and imported for se. We would copy on needed
>> classes.
>> >Benefit would be to stay aligned on EE and avoid introducity new api
>> without having to bring the whole jar if too big compared to our usage.
>> >Le 29 déc. 2014 01:39, "Werner Keil" <we...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >
>> >Well JSR-330 is not part of SE either;-)
>> >>
>> >>If we're lucky Java SE 9 brings a more modular approach also to adding
>> such
>> >>pieces without the whole EE stack, but until then a JAR that (in Maven)
>> >>isn't more than 2x the 3 kb of JSR 330 does not sound like a great burden
>> >>to me.
>> >>
>> >>Werner
>> >>
>> >>On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi!
>> >>>
>> >>> Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
>> >>> @Priority or not.
>> >>>
>> >>> It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
>> >>> downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
>> >>> course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
>> >>>
>> >>> The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
>> >>> commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
>> >>>
>> >>> LieGrue,
>> >>> strub
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
+1 for using @Priority (just because it's there already and users will be
used to it)
regards,
gerhard
2014-12-29 8:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> JSR-250 is not EE but SE. So it is perfectly fine to just use that.
>
> Doing some 'private' javax packages is not allowed by the JCP.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 29 December 2014, 7:11, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >We can also rely on an intermediate version doing a tamaya-javax which
> would be provided for ee and imported for se. We would copy on needed
> classes.
> >Benefit would be to stay aligned on EE and avoid introducity new api
> without having to bring the whole jar if too big compared to our usage.
> >Le 29 déc. 2014 01:39, "Werner Keil" <we...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> >Well JSR-330 is not part of SE either;-)
> >>
> >>If we're lucky Java SE 9 brings a more modular approach also to adding
> such
> >>pieces without the whole EE stack, but until then a JAR that (in Maven)
> >>isn't more than 2x the 3 kb of JSR 330 does not sound like a great burden
> >>to me.
> >>
> >>Werner
> >>
> >>On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
> >>> @Priority or not.
> >>>
> >>> It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
> >>> downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
> >>> course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
> >>>
> >>> The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
> >>> commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
JSR-250 is not EE but SE. So it is perfectly fine to just use that.
Doing some 'private' javax packages is not allowed by the JCP.
LieGrue,
strub
On Monday, 29 December 2014, 7:11, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>We can also rely on an intermediate version doing a tamaya-javax which would be provided for ee and imported for se. We would copy on needed classes.
>Benefit would be to stay aligned on EE and avoid introducity new api without having to bring the whole jar if too big compared to our usage.
>Le 29 déc. 2014 01:39, "Werner Keil" <we...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>Well JSR-330 is not part of SE either;-)
>>
>>If we're lucky Java SE 9 brings a more modular approach also to adding such
>>pieces without the whole EE stack, but until then a JAR that (in Maven)
>>isn't more than 2x the 3 kb of JSR 330 does not sound like a great burden
>>to me.
>>
>>Werner
>>
>>On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
>>> @Priority or not.
>>>
>>> It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
>>> downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
>>> course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
>>>
>>> The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
>>> commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
We can also rely on an intermediate version doing a tamaya-javax which
would be provided for ee and imported for se. We would copy on needed
classes.
Benefit would be to stay aligned on EE and avoid introducity new api
without having to bring the whole jar if too big compared to our usage.
Le 29 déc. 2014 01:39, "Werner Keil" <we...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Well JSR-330 is not part of SE either;-)
>
> If we're lucky Java SE 9 brings a more modular approach also to adding such
> pieces without the whole EE stack, but until then a JAR that (in Maven)
> isn't more than 2x the 3 kb of JSR 330 does not sound like a great burden
> to me.
>
> Werner
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
> > @Priority or not.
> >
> > It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
> > downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
> > course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
> >
> > The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
> > commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] @Priority from commons-annotations-1.2
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Well JSR-330 is not part of SE either;-)
If we're lucky Java SE 9 brings a more modular approach also to adding such
pieces without the whole EE stack, but until then a JAR that (in Maven)
isn't more than 2x the 3 kb of JSR 330 does not sound like a great burden
to me.
Werner
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding
> @Priority or not.
>
> It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one
> downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of
> course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers.
>
> The question now is whether we can burden our users to add
> commons-annotation-1.2 in SE?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>