[cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods

Pete Muir pmuir at redhat.com
Thu Jun 30 03:38:17 EDT 2011

On 30 Jun 2011, at 08:34, Mark Struberg wrote:

> Yes, the example with the EntityManager might be confusing. Just s/EntityManager/SomeOtherClass/ :)
> (Btw, only EntityManagers provided by producer fields are 'injectable resources' as per the spec and thus made auto-serializable.

Yes, that's what I wrote ;-)

> Which is btw imo technically impossible if the EM contains locking states. But that's another story...

I don't believe CDI requires you to actually restore the same EM on the other side of passivation, it's just the reference must be passivation capable... We should investigate this.

> I wonder if Weld does implement this at all. We recently got an issue reported for OWB that some parts of Seam are not working.

It does IIRC.

> It looks like OWB performs those tests and fails with a deployment exception whereas Weld doesn't detect it.

Can you elaborate with the issue?

> Are there TCK tests for this behaviour?

There are some.

> I'd favour to drop that language and functionality if noone objects.

Please file a CDI issue and we can discuss.

> Btw, there are also a few other occurrences :
> 6.6.4
>> If a managed bean which declares a passivating scope:
>> * has a non-transient injected field, <- that part is fine
>> bean constructor parameter or initializer method parameter
>> that does not resolve to a passivation capable dependency, or
> But I don't get the contructor parameter and @Inject method parameter criteria.

Right, it's the same thing. Add it to the issue.

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list