[jsr342-experts] Re: Implicit Producers
- From: David Blevins <david.blevins@...>
- To: jsr342-experts@...
- Subject: [jsr342-experts] Re: Implicit Producers
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:17:12 -0700
On Apr 15, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Adam Bien wrote:
> Hi David,
> I referred in my earlier emails to them as default producers provided by
> the spec. A default producer would expose default resources and make them
> available via a simple @Inject.
> Hence default producer is a producer, you could also @Specialize it...
It's not clear if you're proposing a possible solution to the conflicts that
adding Default/Implicit Producers could cause existing applications. Can you
> On 11.04.2012, at 05:26, David Blevins wrote:
>> Another concrete topic on aligning things (noticed this in some of the
>> Many times it has come up that we want to make more things injectable via
>> @Inject at the platform level. I'm totally on board with that and have
>> been doing some of the suggesting.
>> I've started mentally calling them "implicit" producers as effectively
>> what we're doing is adding producers to applications that weren't
>> explicitly created by the application.
>> As a large number of applications in existence will already have producer
>> methods or fields that produce various JavaEE resources currently only
>> available via @Resource, @EJB, etc. there is a bit of a compatibility
>> Even if we add producers with full spec-standard qualifiers, any existing
>> injection points that do not use qualifiers become ambiguous.
>> It would be great to hear some thoughts on how to solve that.