I was obviously not clear enough. I didn't say DS should redevelop what already exist but should perhaps integrate it. When I read that there are no use cases for converter since JSF provides it, it makes me react.
Antoine Le 14 juin 2012 à 09:51, Pete Muir <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 >>> >
