Agree with Mark, much better to CDI enable a converter framework in DS, than make a whole converter framework :-)
On 14 Jun 2012, at 07:21, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi Antoine! > > DS is imo clearly not only targeting JSF! > > And I wasn't saying that a Converter framework wont be fine. > > BUT: writing this _properly_ is a pretty complex task, and it has barely to > do with DeltaSpike as it is not CDI depending. In fact, if I would do such a > thing, I'd keep all the Converter logic purely native Java and additionally > provide bindings to CDI and Spring. > > > I think there is already some Converter work done in Apache commons btw. - a > converter framework in commons which can be used universally is the way to go > imo. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:02 AM >> Subject: About Converter framework vote >> >> Hi, >> >> I'll probably vote +1 but wanted to comment this point >> >>> a.) What is this for? -> no one knows >> >> As I was away for a long time (Launching Agorava) I won't comment this >> >>> b.) Do we need it in DeltaSpike? -> not yet. >> >> Yes you're probably right : we have more important things to deal with now >> >>> c.) Do we need it for JSF? -> No, JSF has it's own Converter logic >> >> Yes, but JSF is not the only use case for using CDI >> >>> d.) Do we need it somewhere else? -> No, not afaik >> >> That's the point I don't agree with. I'm working on Java EE 6 POCS >> for a customer. One go this POC is a full rest application using HTML5 techs >> on >> client and Jax-RS / CDI and other Java EE tech on the server. It's obvious >> that a converter framework would be very useful here since we won't have JSF >> to deal with it. We'll have to create some batch POC, again converter would >> be nice. >> >> In fact it questions the goals of DS. We all agree on the fact that DS >> should >> provide a way to ease CDI extension development. But beyond that should it >> provide only tools ease to JSF development or should it be more ambitious by >> bringing missing features for the whole Java EE 6 stack. You probably >> guessed >> that I prefer the second solution ;-). >> >> Antoine Sabot-Durand >> ------------------------------- >> http://agorava.org >> @antoine_sd >>
