You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by no...@comments.apache.org on 2013/06/27 11:05:14 UTC
John commented on http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html
Hello,
John has commented on http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html.
You can find the comment here:
http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410
Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be approved
before it is shown on the site.
Below is the reply that was posted:
~~~~
Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces breaks the interface/implementation independence.
~~~~
With regards,
The Apache Tapestry Project.
You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to changes for the tapestry site.
To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe from the mailing list that is providing these notifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
It is pointless to get into design improvements to Tapestry IoC along these
lines, but I would certainly do things a bit differently, now that Plastic
is available in the arsenal. I think a hypotehtical IoC would do much more
bytecode manipualtion ala components and pages; I also had some interesting
thoughts I may pursue in the future, about organizing the IoC as a
container of functions (leveraging generics and other things), and not a
container of interfaces&implementations.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Yes, but it is optional. Anything you don't want to specify using an
> annotation on the interface can be specified instead using the
> ServiceBinder interface, or as an annotation on a module method.
>
> Ok, in this case, if you want to use the Tapestry-specific magic, you get
> to use the Tapestry-specific annotation.
>
> If you don't like that, you can inject the underlying JPASessionManager
> service and get/commit the transaction yourself. Or create a
> Tapestry-facing Facade with the Tapestry annotations whose implementation
> delegates to the "vanilla" interface.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
> thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>> John has commented on http://tapestry.apache.org/**
>>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html>
>>> .
>>> You can find the comment here:
>>> http://tapestry.apache.org/**integrating-with-jpa.html#**comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410>
>>> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be approved
>>> before it is shown on the site.
>>>
>>> Below is the reply that was posted:
>>> ~~~~
>>> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
>>> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
>>> ~~~~
>>>
>>
>> I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
>> shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
>>
>> --
>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<de...@tapestry.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>
> Creator of Apache Tapestry
>
> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
>
> (971) 678-5210
> http://howardlewisship.com
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com
Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:20:43 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> As I remember it, I changed the API so that a search for an annotation
> on a service will also check the service implementation ... so rather
> than
> "copy" the annotations (which is very, very problematic), the code looks
> into two places. Take a peek at implementations of AnnotationProvider.
I'll take a look at it. This is a solution that only works inside
Tapestry-IoC. If you want to pass a T-IoC service for CDI, for example,
and have something that needs annotations in methods, transaction
handling, for example, this won't work.
I've never worked with bytecode instrumentation and ASM myself, so I don't
know what's problematic with copying annotations. Would you enlighten me?
:)
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Copy annotations from service implementation to proxies
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:42:41 -0300, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
<th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is copying the annotations from service implementation method to
> their corresponding proxy classes so problematic? I've asked this once
> in June, no answer. Is it problematic or just hard?
Actually, I asked in January.
> I've just tested this and MethodInvocation.getAnnotation() doesn't
> actually check the service implementation method.
For decoration, using the AspectDecorator service, the result is the same.
> From debugging the code, I've found that it ends up looking at the
> proxy, not at the service implementation. Right now, the only solution
> is to put annotations in service interfaces, something which is very
> against OOP principles in my humble opinion, so I think this is a very
> strong downside for Tapestry-IoC. And I want to fix that.
>
> I've written a test for that and it fails (at least on 5.4-alpha-22):
>
> public class MethodAdviceTest {
>
> @Test
> public void MethodAdvice_getAnnotation() {
>
> RegistryBuilder builder = new RegistryBuilder();
> builder.add(TestModule.class);
> final Registry build = builder.build();
> final Service service = build.getService(Service.class);
> assert service.method("aaaa") != null;
>
> }
>
> }
>
> public interface Service {
> public String method(String string);
> }
>
> public class ServiceImpl implements Service {
> @CacheResult // from javax.cache / cache-api 0.6-SNAPSHOT
> public String method(String string) {
> return null;
> }
> }
>
> public class TestModule {
>
> public static void bind(ServiceBinder binder) {
> binder.bind(Service.class, ServiceImpl.class);
> }
>
> @Advise(serviceInterface = Service.class)
> public static void advise(MethodAdviceReceiver methodAdviceReceiver) {
> methodAdviceReceiver.adviseAllMethods(new TestAdvice());
> }
>
> final private static class TestAdvice implements MethodAdvice {
>
> /* (non-Javadoc)
> * @see
> org.apache.tapestry5.plastic.MethodAdvice#advise(org.apache.tapestry5.plastic.MethodInvocation)
> */
> public void advise(MethodInvocation invocation) {
>
> CacheResult cacheResult =
> invocation.getMethod().getAnnotation(CacheResult.class);
> if (cacheResult == null) {
> cacheResult = invocation.getAnnotation(CacheResult.class);
> if (cacheResult != null) {
> invocation.setReturnValue("Annotation found");
> }
> }
> invocation.proceed();
>
> }
>
> }
>
> }
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
>> thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oops, now I realized my suggestion was written in a bad way. It's about
>>> Tapestry-IoC services, not Tapestry(-core).
>>>
>>> What I'm actually suggesting is beyond that: it's about copying the
>>> annotations on service implementation *methods* to their corresponding
>>> methods in the service proxy. This would solve the problem described by
>>> John. This cannot be solved in any other way in Tapestry-IoC right now.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:51:40 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship
>>> <hl...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, but it is optional. Anything you don't want to specify using an
>>>> annotation on the interface can be specified instead using the
>>>> ServiceBinder interface, or as an annotation on a module method.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, in this case, if you want to use the Tapestry-specific magic, you
>>>> get
>>>> to use the Tapestry-specific annotation.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't like that, you can inject the underlying
>>>> JPASessionManager
>>>> service and get/commit the transaction yourself. Or create a
>>>> Tapestry-facing Facade with the Tapestry annotations whose
>>>> implementation
>>>> delegates to the "vanilla" interface.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
>>>> thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>> John has commented on http://tapestry.apache.org/**
>>>>>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http**://tapestry.apache.org/**
>>>>>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> You can find the comment here:
>>>>>> http://tapestry.apache.org/****integrating-with-jpa.html#****
>>>>>> comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/**integrating-with-jpa.html#**comment_1410>
>>>>>> <http://tapestry.**apache.org/integrating-with-**jpa.html#comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be
>>>>>> approved
>>>>>> before it is shown on the site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Below is the reply that was posted:
>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service
>>>>>> interfaces
>>>>>> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
>>>>> shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------**
>>>>> --**---------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apa**che.org<http://apache.org>
>>>>> <de...@tapestry.apache.org>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<de...@tapestry.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Copy annotations from service implementation to proxies
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:20:43 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> As I remember it, I changed the API so that a search for an annotation
> on a service will also check the service implementation ... so rather
> than
> "copy" the annotations (which is very, very problematic), the code looks
> into two places. Take a peek at implementations of AnnotationProvider.
Hello, Howard!
Why is copying the annotations from service implementation method to their
corresponding proxy classes so problematic? I've asked this once in June,
no answer. Is it problematic or just hard?
I've just tested this and MethodInvocation.getAnnotation() doesn't
actually check the service implementation method. From debugging the code,
I've found that it ends up looking at the proxy, not at the service
implementation. Right now, the only solution is to put annotations in
service interfaces, something which is very against OOP principles in my
humble opinion, so I think this is a very strong downside for
Tapestry-IoC. And I want to fix that.
I've written a test for that and it fails (at least on 5.4-alpha-22):
public class MethodAdviceTest {
@Test
public void MethodAdvice_getAnnotation() {
RegistryBuilder builder = new RegistryBuilder();
builder.add(TestModule.class);
final Registry build = builder.build();
final Service service = build.getService(Service.class);
assert service.method("aaaa") != null;
}
}
public interface Service {
public String method(String string);
}
public class ServiceImpl implements Service {
@CacheResult // from javax.cache / cache-api 0.6-SNAPSHOT
public String method(String string) {
return null;
}
}
public class TestModule {
public static void bind(ServiceBinder binder) {
binder.bind(Service.class, ServiceImpl.class);
}
@Advise(serviceInterface = Service.class)
public static void advise(MethodAdviceReceiver methodAdviceReceiver) {
methodAdviceReceiver.adviseAllMethods(new TestAdvice());
}
final private static class TestAdvice implements MethodAdvice {
/* (non-Javadoc)
* @see
org.apache.tapestry5.plastic.MethodAdvice#advise(org.apache.tapestry5.plastic.MethodInvocation)
*/
public void advise(MethodInvocation invocation) {
CacheResult cacheResult =
invocation.getMethod().getAnnotation(CacheResult.class);
if (cacheResult == null) {
cacheResult = invocation.getAnnotation(CacheResult.class);
if (cacheResult != null) {
invocation.setReturnValue("Annotation found");
}
}
invocation.proceed();
}
}
}
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
> thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oops, now I realized my suggestion was written in a bad way. It's about
>> Tapestry-IoC services, not Tapestry(-core).
>>
>> What I'm actually suggesting is beyond that: it's about copying the
>> annotations on service implementation *methods* to their corresponding
>> methods in the service proxy. This would solve the problem described by
>> John. This cannot be solved in any other way in Tapestry-IoC right now.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:51:40 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but it is optional. Anything you don't want to specify using an
>>> annotation on the interface can be specified instead using the
>>> ServiceBinder interface, or as an annotation on a module method.
>>>
>>> Ok, in this case, if you want to use the Tapestry-specific magic, you
>>> get
>>> to use the Tapestry-specific annotation.
>>>
>>> If you don't like that, you can inject the underlying JPASessionManager
>>> service and get/commit the transaction yourself. Or create a
>>> Tapestry-facing Facade with the Tapestry annotations whose
>>> implementation
>>> delegates to the "vanilla" interface.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
>>> thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>> John has commented on http://tapestry.apache.org/**
>>>>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http**://tapestry.apache.org/**
>>>>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>> You can find the comment here:
>>>>> http://tapestry.apache.org/****integrating-with-jpa.html#****
>>>>> comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/**integrating-with-jpa.html#**comment_1410>
>>>>> <http://tapestry.**apache.org/integrating-with-**jpa.html#comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be
>>>>> approved
>>>>> before it is shown on the site.
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is the reply that was posted:
>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
>>>>> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
>>>> shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------**
>>>> --**---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apa**che.org<http://apache.org>
>>>> <de...@tapestry.apache.org>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<de...@tapestry.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
As I remember it, I changed the API so that a search for an annotation on a
service will also check the service implementation ... so rather than
"copy" the annotations (which is very, very problematic), the code looks
into two places. Take a peek at implementations of AnnotationProvider.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops, now I realized my suggestion was written in a bad way. It's about
> Tapestry-IoC services, not Tapestry(-core).
>
> What I'm actually suggesting is beyond that: it's about copying the
> annotations on service implementation *methods* to their corresponding
> methods in the service proxy. This would solve the problem described by
> John. This cannot be solved in any other way in Tapestry-IoC right now.
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:51:40 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, but it is optional. Anything you don't want to specify using an
>> annotation on the interface can be specified instead using the
>> ServiceBinder interface, or as an annotation on a module method.
>>
>> Ok, in this case, if you want to use the Tapestry-specific magic, you get
>> to use the Tapestry-specific annotation.
>>
>> If you don't like that, you can inject the underlying JPASessionManager
>> service and get/commit the transaction yourself. Or create a
>> Tapestry-facing Facade with the Tapestry annotations whose implementation
>> delegates to the "vanilla" interface.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
>> thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>> John has commented on http://tapestry.apache.org/**
>>>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http**://tapestry.apache.org/**
>>>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>> You can find the comment here:
>>>> http://tapestry.apache.org/****integrating-with-jpa.html#****
>>>> comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/**integrating-with-jpa.html#**comment_1410>
>>>> <http://tapestry.**apache.org/integrating-with-**jpa.html#comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be
>>>> approved
>>>> before it is shown on the site.
>>>>
>>>> Below is the reply that was posted:
>>>> ~~~~
>>>> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
>>>> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
>>>> ~~~~
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
>>> shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>>
>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------**
>>> --**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apa**che.org<http://apache.org>
>>> <de...@tapestry.apache.org>
>>> >
>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<de...@tapestry.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com
Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
Oops, now I realized my suggestion was written in a bad way. It's about
Tapestry-IoC services, not Tapestry(-core).
What I'm actually suggesting is beyond that: it's about copying the
annotations on service implementation *methods* to their corresponding
methods in the service proxy. This would solve the problem described by
John. This cannot be solved in any other way in Tapestry-IoC right now.
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:51:40 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, but it is optional. Anything you don't want to specify using an
> annotation on the interface can be specified instead using the
> ServiceBinder interface, or as an annotation on a module method.
>
> Ok, in this case, if you want to use the Tapestry-specific magic, you get
> to use the Tapestry-specific annotation.
>
> If you don't like that, you can inject the underlying JPASessionManager
> service and get/commit the transaction yourself. Or create a
> Tapestry-facing Facade with the Tapestry annotations whose implementation
> delegates to the "vanilla" interface.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
> thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>> John has commented on http://tapestry.apache.org/**
>>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html>
>>> .
>>> You can find the comment here:
>>> http://tapestry.apache.org/**integrating-with-jpa.html#**comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410>
>>> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be
>>> approved
>>> before it is shown on the site.
>>>
>>> Below is the reply that was posted:
>>> ~~~~
>>> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
>>> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
>>> ~~~~
>>>
>>
>> I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
>> shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
>>
>> --
>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<de...@tapestry.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
Yes, but it is optional. Anything you don't want to specify using an
annotation on the interface can be specified instead using the
ServiceBinder interface, or as an annotation on a module method.
Ok, in this case, if you want to use the Tapestry-specific magic, you get
to use the Tapestry-specific annotation.
If you don't like that, you can inject the underlying JPASessionManager
service and get/commit the transaction yourself. Or create a
Tapestry-facing Facade with the Tapestry annotations whose implementation
delegates to the "vanilla" interface.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>> John has commented on http://tapestry.apache.org/**
>> integrating-with-jpa.html<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html>
>> .
>> You can find the comment here:
>> http://tapestry.apache.org/**integrating-with-jpa.html#**comment_1410<http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410>
>> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be approved
>> before it is shown on the site.
>>
>> Below is the reply that was posted:
>> ~~~~
>> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
>> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
>> ~~~~
>>
>
> I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
> shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<de...@tapestry.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com
Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by John <jo...@quivinco.com>.
Seperation of concerns is a basic OO principle, I don't see how it relates to JEE?
Tapestry IoC encourages the use of seperate service definitions and implementations through bindings, yet it fails to disentangle the concerns of implementations with these annotations.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Lenny Primak
To: Tapestry development
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
I think you want Tapestry's very light JPA implementation to do way more than what it was meant to do originally.
Your requirements clearly require JEE or equivalent infrastructure. You should use it.
On Jul 4, 2013, at 4:04 AM, John wrote:
> This is a real world issue for me.
>
> I recently implemented 2 version of an auditing service, one which used log4j to persist and another that used a db. When I created the later db version I added the CommitAfter annotations to the service interface making the change a little messy and not entirely suitable for the prior log4j implementation.
>
> It would seem to make more sense for the CommitAfter and PersistenceContext annotations to be in the implementing class. Maybe you can do this anyway - I can't remember if I checked this or not, but I think I did and it doesn't work that way.
>
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
> To: Tapestry development
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:27 PM
> Subject: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> John has commented on
>> http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html.
>> You can find the comment here:
>> http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410
>> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be approved
>> before it is shown on the site.
>>
>> Below is the reply that was posted:
>> ~~~~
>> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
>> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
>> ~~~~
>
> I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
> shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by Lenny Primak <lp...@hope.nyc.ny.us>.
I think you want Tapestry's very light JPA implementation to do way more than what it was meant to do originally.
Your requirements clearly require JEE or equivalent infrastructure. You should use it.
On Jul 4, 2013, at 4:04 AM, John wrote:
> This is a real world issue for me.
>
> I recently implemented 2 version of an auditing service, one which used log4j to persist and another that used a db. When I created the later db version I added the CommitAfter annotations to the service interface making the change a little messy and not entirely suitable for the prior log4j implementation.
>
> It would seem to make more sense for the CommitAfter and PersistenceContext annotations to be in the implementing class. Maybe you can do this anyway - I can't remember if I checked this or not, but I think I did and it doesn't work that way.
>
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
> To: Tapestry development
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:27 PM
> Subject: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> John has commented on
>> http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html.
>> You can find the comment here:
>> http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410
>> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be approved
>> before it is shown on the site.
>>
>> Below is the reply that was posted:
>> ~~~~
>> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
>> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
>> ~~~~
>
> I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
> shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by John <jo...@quivinco.com>.
This is a real world issue for me.
I recently implemented 2 version of an auditing service, one which used log4j to persist and another that used a db. When I created the later db version I added the CommitAfter annotations to the service interface making the change a little messy and not entirely suitable for the prior log4j implementation.
It would seem to make more sense for the CommitAfter and PersistenceContext annotations to be in the implementing class. Maybe you can do this anyway - I can't remember if I checked this or not, but I think I did and it doesn't work that way.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
To: Tapestry development
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:27 PM
Subject: Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org> wrote:
> Hello,
> John has commented on
> http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html.
> You can find the comment here:
> http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410
> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be approved
> before it is shown on the site.
>
> Below is the reply that was posted:
> ~~~~
> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
> ~~~~
I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Copy annotations from servce implementation to proxies
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:05:14 -0300, <no...@comments.apache.org> wrote:
> Hello,
> John has commented on
> http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html.
> You can find the comment here:
> http://tapestry.apache.org/integrating-with-jpa.html#comment_1410
> Please note that if the comment contains a hyperlink, it must be approved
> before it is shown on the site.
>
> Below is the reply that was posted:
> ~~~~
> Adding implementations specific annotations to the service interfaces
> breaks the interface/implementation independence.
> ~~~~
I agree with this. What do you guys think? I think this is a serious
shotcoming in Tapestry-IoC.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org