You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltaspike.apache.org by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com> on 2012/07/06 21:50:33 UTC
v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet. Thoughts
on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in Seam
3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation in
existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be part of
spec but was later pulled.
--
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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
i get it but why i said it is i like the fact you can't use any xml file to
change injections. However sometimes that's cool (change an address, a
port...) so i'd prefer to be able to say "ok let's change injection from
config but do it only where i said it was allowed".
- Romain
2012/7/7 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Hmm, nope not really.
>
> The idea is to take an arbitrary 3rd party source - most probably some
> legacy project - and add the xml config from 'outside' to make those
> classes usable.
> Requiring some annotation on them would trash this imo.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 11:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
> >
> > just an idea not directly linked: could be nice to force an object
> > configurable through XML to be declared as this (@Configurable)
> >
> > - Romain
> >
> >
> > 2012/7/7 Anil Saldhana <an...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> A XML based configuration for an object structure IMO is important when
> >> you do not want to add anything to the source of the object structure.
> >>
> >> This is the spring core dependency injection model that users may want
> >> from Deltaspike.
> >>
> >> I will definitely use it.
> >>
> >> On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hmm just another idea:
> >> >
> >> > If we do an own config module, we could provide the core + different
> >> bindings:
> >> >
> >> > 1. the 'old' CDI spec XML config
> >> > 2. a Spring style XML config
> >> >
> >> > 3. ...
> >> >
> >> > LieGrue,
> >> > strub
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> >> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Cc:
> >> >> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 10:14 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
> >> >>
> >> >> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs
> > to be
> >> >> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc)
> > which
> >> can
> >> >> be a bit complicated
> >> >>
> >> >> - Romain
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however,
> > if it gets
> >> >> an
> >> >>> own (optional) module: +0
> >> >>>
> >> >>> regards,
> >> >>> gerhard
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we
> > haven't done it
> >> >> yet.
> >> >>> Thoughts
> >> >>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from
> > what we have in
> >> >>> Seam
> >> >>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
> >> >> implementation in
> >> >>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that
> > was to be
> >> >> part
> >> >>> of
> >> >>>> spec but was later pulled.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Hmm, nope not really.
The idea is to take an arbitrary 3rd party source - most probably some legacy project - and add the xml config from 'outside' to make those classes usable.
Requiring some annotation on them would trash this imo.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 11:33 PM
> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
>
> just an idea not directly linked: could be nice to force an object
> configurable through XML to be declared as this (@Configurable)
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/7/7 Anil Saldhana <an...@gmail.com>
>
>> A XML based configuration for an object structure IMO is important when
>> you do not want to add anything to the source of the object structure.
>>
>> This is the spring core dependency injection model that users may want
>> from Deltaspike.
>>
>> I will definitely use it.
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm just another idea:
>> >
>> > If we do an own config module, we could provide the core + different
>> bindings:
>> >
>> > 1. the 'old' CDI spec XML config
>> > 2. a Spring style XML config
>> >
>> > 3. ...
>> >
>> > LieGrue,
>> > strub
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Cc:
>> >> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 10:14 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
>> >>
>> >> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs
> to be
>> >> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc)
> which
>> can
>> >> be a bit complicated
>> >>
>> >> - Romain
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however,
> if it gets
>> >> an
>> >>> own (optional) module: +0
>> >>>
>> >>> regards,
>> >>> gerhard
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>> >>>
>> >>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we
> haven't done it
>> >> yet.
>> >>> Thoughts
>> >>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from
> what we have in
>> >>> Seam
>> >>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
>> >> implementation in
>> >>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that
> was to be
>> >> part
>> >>> of
>> >>>> spec but was later pulled.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
just an idea not directly linked: could be nice to force an object
configurable through XML to be declared as this (@Configurable)
- Romain
2012/7/7 Anil Saldhana <an...@gmail.com>
> A XML based configuration for an object structure IMO is important when
> you do not want to add anything to the source of the object structure.
>
> This is the spring core dependency injection model that users may want
> from Deltaspike.
>
> I will definitely use it.
>
> On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > Hmm just another idea:
> >
> > If we do an own config module, we could provide the core + different
> bindings:
> >
> > 1. the 'old' CDI spec XML config
> > 2. a Spring style XML config
> >
> > 3. ...
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 10:14 PM
> >> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
> >>
> >> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
> >> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which
> can
> >> be a bit complicated
> >>
> >> - Romain
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets
> >> an
> >>> own (optional) module: +0
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>> gerhard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it
> >> yet.
> >>> Thoughts
> >>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in
> >>> Seam
> >>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
> >> implementation in
> >>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
> >> part
> >>> of
> >>>> spec but was later pulled.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Anil Saldhana <an...@gmail.com>.
A XML based configuration for an object structure IMO is important when you do not want to add anything to the source of the object structure.
This is the spring core dependency injection model that users may want from Deltaspike.
I will definitely use it.
On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hmm just another idea:
>
> If we do an own config module, we could provide the core + different bindings:
>
> 1. the 'old' CDI spec XML config
> 2. a Spring style XML config
>
> 3. ...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 10:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
>>
>> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
>> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
>> be a bit complicated
>>
>> - Romain
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets
>> an
>>> own (optional) module: +0
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it
>> yet.
>>> Thoughts
>>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in
>>> Seam
>>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
>> implementation in
>>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
>> part
>>> of
>>>> spec but was later pulled.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
Nice idea, I've had a few people come to me and say "we have a spring xml configuration, how do we do the same for CDI". This would be an easy answer for them!
On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:28, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hmm just another idea:
>
> If we do an own config module, we could provide the core + different bindings:
>
> 1. the 'old' CDI spec XML config
> 2. a Spring style XML config
>
> 3. ...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 10:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
>>
>> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
>> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
>> be a bit complicated
>>
>> - Romain
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets
>> an
>>> own (optional) module: +0
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it
>> yet.
>>> Thoughts
>>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in
>>> Seam
>>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
>> implementation in
>>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
>> part
>>> of
>>>> spec but was later pulled.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Hmm just another idea:
If we do an own config module, we could provide the core + different bindings:
1. the 'old' CDI spec XML config
2. a Spring style XML config
3. ...
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 10:14 PM
> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
>
> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
> be a bit complicated
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>
>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets
> an
>> own (optional) module: +0
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it
> yet.
>> Thoughts
>> > on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in
>> Seam
>> > 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
> implementation in
>> > existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
> part
>> of
>> > spec but was later pulled.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
for me a separate module sounds logical but nothing blocks to make it part
of the core since each extension can be activated using
configsourceproviders of DS
- Romain
2012/7/9 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> As Romain said, I would expect you to need to turn this on somehow (e.g.
> enable extension). If we think a separate module is the easiest way to turn
> it on, then I think that makes sense.
>
> On 9 Jul 2012, at 10:20, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> > The main reason why I would prefer a separate module is that this is
> really only used by a few people. And those really get less and less. Most
> people do not use it and would just be hit by a huge scanning effort. Maybe
> we could make this better performing, but it certainly adds quite some
> complexity.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
> >>
> >> +1 to adding it from me.
> >>
> >> XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to
> existing
> >> feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need
> >> something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
> >>
> >> A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense
> for
> >> *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
> >>
> >> As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for
> CDI, so
> >> I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is
> >> actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the
> past
> >> (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
> >>
> >> BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a
> >> difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX,
> which is
> >> in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't
> >> cause contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core
> concern, and
> >> as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
> >>
> >> On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>
> >>> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
> >>> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc)
> which can
> >>> be a bit complicated
> >>>
> >>> - Romain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it
> >> gets an
> >>>> own (optional) module: +0
> >>>>
> >>>> regards,
> >>>> gerhard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done
> >> it yet.
> >>>> Thoughts
> >>>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have
> >> in
> >>>> Seam
> >>>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
> >> implementation in
> >>>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
> >> part
> >>>> of
> >>>>> spec but was later pulled.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
As Romain said, I would expect you to need to turn this on somehow (e.g. enable extension). If we think a separate module is the easiest way to turn it on, then I think that makes sense.
On 9 Jul 2012, at 10:20, Mark Struberg wrote:
> The main reason why I would prefer a separate module is that this is really only used by a few people. And those really get less and less. Most people do not use it and would just be hit by a huge scanning effort. Maybe we could make this better performing, but it certainly adds quite some complexity.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
>>
>> +1 to adding it from me.
>>
>> XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to existing
>> feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need
>> something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
>>
>> A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense for
>> *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
>>
>> As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for CDI, so
>> I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is
>> actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the past
>> (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
>>
>> BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a
>> difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which is
>> in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't
>> cause contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern, and
>> as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
>>
>> On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>>> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
>>> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
>>> be a bit complicated
>>>
>>> - Romain
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it
>> gets an
>>>> own (optional) module: +0
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done
>> it yet.
>>>> Thoughts
>>>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have
>> in
>>>> Seam
>>>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
>> implementation in
>>>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
>> part
>>>> of
>>>>> spec but was later pulled.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
The main reason why I would prefer a separate module is that this is really only used by a few people. And those really get less and less. Most people do not use it and would just be hit by a huge scanning effort. Maybe we could make this better performing, but it certainly adds quite some complexity.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
>
> +1 to adding it from me.
>
> XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to existing
> feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need
> something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
>
> A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense for
> *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
>
> As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for CDI, so
> I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is
> actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the past
> (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
>
> BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a
> difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which is
> in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't
> cause contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern, and
> as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
>
> On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
>> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
>> be a bit complicated
>>
>> - Romain
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it
> gets an
>>> own (optional) module: +0
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done
> it yet.
>>> Thoughts
>>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have
> in
>>> Seam
>>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only
> implementation in
>>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
> part
>>> of
>>>> spec but was later pulled.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
i agree with mark.
@ antoine:
that's not the only part which crashes with candi.
(we contacted them multiple times - so they are welcome to join the effort
at any time.)
regards,
gerhard
2012/7/9 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> should be fine in core if it respects the way DS modules are done = they
> can be switched by config
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/7/9 Antoine Sabot-Durand <an...@sabot-durand.net>
>
> > +1 I agree with Pete on this but we should pay attention to Candi
> > compatibility. Seam config crashes with Caucho Candi which already has
> its
> > own xml config solution. Having introduced it in JBoss Solder made Seam 3
> > incompatible with Resin.
> >
> > I agree that core is a good place for xml config as long as we check that
> > it won't make Deltaspike unusable with Resin.
> >
> >
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> > Le 7 juil. 2012 à 12:33, Pete Muir a écrit :
> >
> > > +1 to adding it from me.
> > >
> > > XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to
> > existing feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need
> > something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
> > >
> > > A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense
> > for *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
> > >
> > > As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for
> > CDI, so I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is
> > actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the
> past
> > (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
> > >
> > > BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a
> > difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which
> is
> > in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't
> cause
> > contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern,
> and
> > as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
> > >
> > > On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > >
> > >> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
> > >> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc)
> which
> > can
> > >> be a bit complicated
> > >>
> > >> - Romain
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets
> > an
> > >>> own (optional) module: +0
> > >>>
> > >>> regards,
> > >>> gerhard
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet.
> > >>> Thoughts
> > >>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have
> in
> > >>> Seam
> > >>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation
> in
> > >>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
> > part
> > >>> of
> > >>>> spec but was later pulled.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
should be fine in core if it respects the way DS modules are done = they
can be switched by config
- Romain
2012/7/9 Antoine Sabot-Durand <an...@sabot-durand.net>
> +1 I agree with Pete on this but we should pay attention to Candi
> compatibility. Seam config crashes with Caucho Candi which already has its
> own xml config solution. Having introduced it in JBoss Solder made Seam 3
> incompatible with Resin.
>
> I agree that core is a good place for xml config as long as we check that
> it won't make Deltaspike unusable with Resin.
>
>
>
> Antoine
>
> Le 7 juil. 2012 à 12:33, Pete Muir a écrit :
>
> > +1 to adding it from me.
> >
> > XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to
> existing feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need
> something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
> >
> > A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense
> for *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
> >
> > As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for
> CDI, so I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is
> actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the past
> (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
> >
> > BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a
> difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which is
> in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't cause
> contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern, and
> as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
> >
> > On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >
> >> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
> >> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which
> can
> >> be a bit complicated
> >>
> >> - Romain
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets
> an
> >>> own (optional) module: +0
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>> gerhard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet.
> >>> Thoughts
> >>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in
> >>> Seam
> >>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation in
> >>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be
> part
> >>> of
> >>>> spec but was later pulled.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Antoine Sabot-Durand <an...@sabot-durand.net>.
+1 I agree with Pete on this but we should pay attention to Candi compatibility. Seam config crashes with Caucho Candi which already has its own xml config solution. Having introduced it in JBoss Solder made Seam 3 incompatible with Resin.
I agree that core is a good place for xml config as long as we check that it won't make Deltaspike unusable with Resin.
Antoine
Le 7 juil. 2012 à 12:33, Pete Muir a écrit :
> +1 to adding it from me.
>
> XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to existing feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
>
> A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense for *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
>
> As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for CDI, so I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the past (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
>
> BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which is in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't cause contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern, and as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
>
> On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
>> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
>> be a bit complicated
>>
>> - Romain
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets an
>>> own (optional) module: +0
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet.
>>> Thoughts
>>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in
>>> Seam
>>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation in
>>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be part
>>> of
>>>> spec but was later pulled.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
+1 to adding it from me.
XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to existing feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense for *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for CDI, so I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the past (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which is in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't cause contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern, and as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
> be a bit complicated
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>
>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets an
>> own (optional) module: +0
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet.
>> Thoughts
>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in
>> Seam
>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation in
>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be part
>> of
>>> spec but was later pulled.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
be a bit complicated
- Romain
2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets an
> own (optional) module: +0
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
>
> > It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet.
> Thoughts
> > on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in
> Seam
> > 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation in
> > existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be part
> of
> > spec but was later pulled.
> >
> > --
> > 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets an
own (optional) module: +0
regards,
gerhard
2012/7/6 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet. Thoughts
> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in Seam
> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation in
> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be part of
> spec but was later pulled.
>
> --
> 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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
+1
I'd do this as own module. It's really usable for some use cases but others do not need it at all.
I'd also go for more regular expressions in the configuration. That's something I did in my small interdyn extension where I'm able to configure all .*ServiceImpl classes as intercepted with some annotation.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 9:55 PM
> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
>
> +1
>
> On 12-07-06 3:50 PM, Jason Porter wrote:
>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet.
> Thoughts
>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in Seam
>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation in
>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be part of
>> spec but was later pulled.
>>
>
Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Posted by Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 12-07-06 3:50 PM, Jason Porter wrote:
> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet. Thoughts
> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have in Seam
> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation in
> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be part of
> spec but was later pulled.
>