[cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility
Sabot-Durand Antoine
antoine at sabot-durand.net
Fri Nov 30 17:42:17 EST 2012
Antoine Sabot-Durand votes : 1a and 2a.
Le 29 nov. 2012 à 10:02, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> a écrit :
> On 11/27/2012 05:36 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> We have 4 tests which all show 1 (b) and we have zero tests which show 1 (a).
> Which are the 4? I am only aware of https://github.com/struberg/cdi_eartest
>>
>>
>> As I told you almost a month ago: provide tests which prove your claim and then we can verify. You always claimed 1 (a) and I proved all your claims wrong so far. It's still your turn to provide tests which underline your claims. Until then it's just mere believe and not a fact.
> Even in this e-mail thread I already said how to change your testcase to
> see your theory fall apart. You can easily test that yourself.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>
>>> To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
>>> Cc: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>; "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility
>>>
>>> T hese are facts. You claim that all the certified application servers
>>> implement 1(b). You support this by providing a single testcase. There
>>> are other testcases that show the opposite and indicate that what you
>>> observe is not "application servers implementing 1(b)" but rather
>>> "application servers behaving the 1(b) way in a limited portion of
>>> scenarios, the 1(a) way in other portion of scenarios and there are also
>>> scenarios where each application server behaves differently".
>>>
>>> On 11/27/2012 04:46 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>> It's enough to use Mark's example and replace the specializing
>>> bean with
>>>>> an alternative. Or add another web archive. You do not really have to
>>> do
>>>>> much to find out that Mark's argument is a side-effect of the Weld
>>> bug I
>>>>> already mentioned that affects a certain portion of usecases. Other
>>> than
>>>>> that the containers do not have anything in common with 1(b).
>>>> Jozef, please don't add any personal interpretation but purely stick to
>>> the facts!
>>>> ALL the tested cases act like 1.(a) in ALL TESTED AND CERTIFIED EE6
>>> servers so far!
>>>> To change this now will imo introduce backward incompatibility!
>>>>
>>>> If you like it or not is another story. But please stick to the facts!
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>;
>>> "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:33 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/26/2012 10:28 PM, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> It's enough to use Mark's example and replace the specializing
>>> bean with
>>>>> an alternative. Or add another web archive. You do not really have to
>>> do
>>>>> much to find out that Mark's argument is a side-effect of the Weld
>>> bug I
>>>>> already mentioned that affects a certain portion of usecases. Other
>>> than
>>>>> that the containers do not have anything in common with 1(b).
>>>>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
More information about the cdi-dev
mailing list