[cdi-dev] Sorting out the "bean name" mess

[Mark Struberg]

I always use the 3 terms

* Managed Bean
* Contextual Instance
* Contextual Reference

'bean' is pretty ambiguous, but CDI Managed Bean (*) (in capital letters) is clear imo.


LieGrue,
strub


(*) I still hope all other Manged Beans should be gone in EE7...




----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon at oracle.com>
> To: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> Cc: Edward Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com>; cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Sorting out the "bean name" mess
> 
> Pete Muir wrote on 09/06/2012 07:04 AM:
>>  All
>> 
>>  https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-250
>> 
>>  The way a bean's name is referred to in the CDI spec is somewhat 
> disjointed.
>> 
>>  I think this occurred because the CDI spec was written with the term 
> "bean name", but it got changed due to concerns over confusion with:
>> 
>>  * JSF managed beans name
>>  * @ManagedBean name
>>  * EJB bean names
>> 
>>  As a result, we now have a mix of "bean name", "bean EL 
> name", and "name", which is ultimately just confusing.
>> 
>>  I would like to standardize on a single term, and I would propose 
> "bean name".
>> 
>>  Thoughts?
>> 
> 
> I agree with standardizing on a single term.
> 
> Where can I use these names?  My understanding is that they're only or
> mostly used in EL expressions, thus "bean EL name".
> 
> Can I inject a bean by name?  That would motivate the more general
> "bean name".
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>