[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-136) Assumption all @Stateful beans should be passivation capable

Jozef Hartinger (Reopened) (JIRA) jira-events at lists.jboss.org
Fri Nov 4 07:52:46 EDT 2011

     [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-136?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Jozef Hartinger reopened CDI-136:

Even though the change is applied in EDR1, there are still places in the Passivation section where session beans are treated differently than managed beans. For example:

{quote}As defined by the EJB specification, all stateful session beans are passivation capable. Stateless and singleton session beans are not passivation capable.{quote}

{quote}The container must guarantee that: all session beans are passivation capable dependencies{quote}

{quote}If a managed bean which declares a passivating scope:{quote}
{quote}If a stateful session bean:{quote}

{quote}If a bean which declares a passivating scope type, or any stateful session bean, has a decorator or interceptor which is not a passivation capable dependency, the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a deployment problem.{quote}

This should be fixed consistently.
> Assumption all @Stateful beans should be passivation capable
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CDI-136
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-136
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Beans, Java EE integration
>    Affects Versions: 1.0
>            Reporter: David Blevins
>            Assignee: Pete Muir
>             Fix For: 1.1.EDR1
> Stateful session beans in transactions can't be passivated and shouldn't have passivation requirements either, like request scope.
> Stateful beans can be any scope.  They are the Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans of EJB.  It's too big of a brush to say that passivation is always required.  That's the part we need to fix.
> Stateful session beans that do passivate are pretty rare.  They should be assumed to be @NormalScope unless otherwise specified.
> The user should be able to say if they want passivation validation on their stateful bean and dependencies.
> We should at a minimum change the related language of the spec to be "For every bean which declares a passivating scope, and for every stateful session bean ***that requires passivation***, " and discuss how to determine that an SFSB requires passivation.
> From the EJB perspective this has always been a container detail, but we could have a rule in CDI that states the checks are not enforced unless the bean class explicitly implements java.io.Serializable.  Alternatively we could make a generic @PassivationScoped annotation for other architectures that have flexible scopes and support passivation concepts.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


More information about the cdi-dev mailing list