[cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility

[Pete Muir]

On 26 Nov 2012, at 21:28, Pete Muir wrote:

> 
> On 26 Nov 2012, at 21:12, Mark Struberg wrote:
> 
>> As Joe already mentioned, maybe we should split this into EJBs with CDI annotations on them and 'pure CDI beans'?
>> 
>> In the case of pure CDI beans like @Dependent or JSR-330 beans - basically all beans without a proxy - I have no clue where one would do the TCCL switch.
> 
> Agreed.

BTW I would strongly encourage any implementation to do this without resorting to fiddling with the TCCL, this is a risky approach, and one that is confusing for sure.

> 
>> 
>>> I read what Jozef said to mean "It's not correct ...". And he is 
>>> correct, as he says Weld does behave like (b) in edge cases, however it 
>>> certainly doesn't behave like (b) in mainstream cases.
>> 
>> Show off, Pete ;)
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. I was simply saying that I hadn't had the same inference you had from Jozef's comment.
> 
>> I already published a few examples for @Specializes, @Alternatives and could easily add @Decorator and @Interceptor examples. All show 1.(b) behaviour on Weld, GlassFish, JBossAS, etc. I'm still missing a single example where it's a clear 1.(a) in an EAR scenario.. 
> 
> Sure, the more examples we have the better! 
> 
> I'll check with Jozef exactly where Weld does and doesn't follow the 1(a) behavior tomorrow, so that I'm not just speculating.
> 
>> 
>> To again emphasise this: there is no single container which is _not_ broken for EAR right now the one way or the other. We could of course keep this backward compatible ;)
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>> To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
>>> Cc: Joseph Bergmark <bergmark at us.ibm.com>; "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:47 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 26 Nov 2012, at 19:41, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I believe the OWB actually follows 1a
>>>>> as the question is currently written.  When the EJB is executing,
>>>>> the thread context classloader would be that of the ejb module so the 
>>> correct
>>>>> bean would be injected for that module. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Nope, OWB follows 1b and is thus perfectly in sync with all the other EE 
>>> containers I tested (feel free to grab my app and test yourself!). CDI != EJB. 
>>> There is (currently) no magical TCCL change involved in any CDI call chain. Not 
>>> in OWB and also not in Weld so far afaik. 
>>> 
>>> Right. Weld never sets the TCCL. But other things such as EJB might to in JBoss 
>>> AS. Stuart, can you comment?
>>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev