Given that it's what Alan was asking about, I think it's a good discussion to
have ;-)
I know you think it's broken, but others don't agree.
On 3 Apr 2012, at 14:17, Mark Struberg wrote:
> I'm not sure if the CDI Conversation scope is a good example as it is widely
> considered pretty much broken ;)
>
>
> Maybe we start this discussion from a different perspective: which features
> do you like to have solved in a portable/reusable way?
>
> The 3-line
> public InstanceHolder class {
> Bean<?> ban;
> CreationalContext<?> cc;
> Object instance;
> }
>
> which you store in the underlying storage (e.g. a Map)?
>
> The get(Bean) and get(Bean, CreationalContext) methods?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Pete Muir <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: Custom Context utilities
>>
>> IMO it would be better if CDI offered reusable conversations, like we did
>> with
>> Weld, rather than it being an extension. So you can just take advantage of
>> Weld's conversation stuff, or OWB's.
>>
>> Maybe there is a need to have something before we get this in CDI 1.1?
>>
>> On 3 Apr 2012, at 13:55, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> That's actually the code I was looking at before I started this
>> thread. This led me to think, if I need it then I'm pretty sure that other
>> framework developers would need it as well, my needs being pretty
>> straightforward.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you are happy to be tied to a specific CDI implementation, you could
>> use the Weld "bound conversations" -
>> http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/1.1.5.Final/en-US/html/contexts.html#d0e5506
>>
>> - which can be backed by two maps, one representing the "session" and
>> one the "request". Or, you could take a look at how Weld implements
>> conversations for inspiration.
>>>>
>>>> I think we maybe would add a conversation scope like this, that is just
>> bound by maps and api, not tied to the web, in some later version of
>> DeltaSpike.
>>>>
>>>> On 2 Apr 2012, at 21:10, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the confusion stems from my lack of experience creating
>> custom contexts. Let me explain what I'm trying to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to manage a state machine, SM, which has been
>> associated with a particular session scope of a communications link. The
>> current state is a scope associated w/ that SM. When the SM transitions to
>> a
>> new state the old state/scope is destroyed and a new one is created.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that it's kind of like a conversation. Is there any
>> example code that I could look at that supports this kind of scenario?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> i agree with pete.
>>>>>> in myfaces codi we have a basic (internal) infrastructure for
>> more advanced
>>>>>> conversations and a spi for customizing the default behaviour.
>>>>>> the infrastructure itself just makes sense for
>> "similar" scopes (right now
>>>>>> we have 4 scopes based on it and they share most of the
>> implementation).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -> it doesn't make sense for scopes which are too
>> different (and the spi
>>>>>> should be enough to customize the default behaviour of existing
>> scopes).
>>>>>> it would be nice if you share your requirements, maybe there is
>> an existing
>>>>>> (custom) scope you can use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/4/2 Pete Muir <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not quite sure what this would constitute, beyond a
>> trivial base class
>>>>>>> or a consistent start/stop API. Every context has quite
>> different
>>>>>>> requirements in my experience, and the hard part is linking
>> the context to
>>>>>>> the start/stop points, and to whatever backs the context,
>> not the actual
>>>>>>> context implementation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have some ideas about what utilities you need?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1 Apr 2012, at 18:05, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It sure would be handy if there were a set of utilities
>> available to
>>>>>>> help framework developers who wish to implement custom
>> Contexts. Maybe I
>>>>>>> missed something during my perusal or maybe it's not
>> all that tough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The context that I need to implement is something of a
>> conversational
>>>>>>> nature. So I don't think that it's trivial to
>> implement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
