[cdi-dev] Fwd: [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
rmannibucau at gmail.com
Tue Mar 12 16:49:04 EDT 2013
just as a little feedback i think ejbs could be added respecting EE
hierarchy (classloader) because it really eases integratino with legacy
modules (without beans.xml)
*Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
2013/3/12 Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
> Hi Pete!
> I was drafting on a general 'implicit bean archive' mail for a few days,
> but I got side tracked and it is/was not yet ready.
> I feel a bit uncomfortable with the introduction of 'implicit bean
> archives' in general. Or at least I don't yet have enough understanding to
> think it's well enough defined.
> I'm not sure where the benefit over the clear beans.xml yes/no behaviour
> we had in CDI-1.0 is, but anyway. Let's put this aside and see how it might
> If I understood it correctly, the intended behaviour is as following:
> * a JAR without any beans.xml but with beans with a CDI scope. Those
> classes (only the ones with cdi scopes) get scanned.
> * only those cdi-scoped classes get fired to ProcessAnnotatedType, right?
> * the Extension has no way to distinguish whether a class did come from an
> implicit or explicit bean archive.
> * What happens if the Extension removes the scope annotation via PAT? Will
> it become @Dependent or not?
> * what about EJBs in such a jar without a beans.xml? Is this also a 'bean
> defining annotation'? Do they lead to firing a PAT for them? Can an
> Extension rely on it? While thinking about this: is this even defined in
> CDI-1.0? Section 12.1 + 11.5.5 define that a PAT must get fired for all
> jars with beans.xml, but is it forbidden in cdi-1.0 to fire a PAT for e.g
> EJBs in jars without any beans.xml in them?
> The 'implicit but only a little' behaviour just blurs things imo. My gut
> feeling is that we will see many corner cases where this will create
> problems / need for clarification.
> > From: Pete Muir <pmuir at bleepbleep.org.uk>
> >To: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>; Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:25 AM
> >Subject: Fwd: [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean
> discovery and @WithAnnotations
> >The words I used were "explicit bean archive" and "implicit bean archive"
> - explicit because it has a beans.xml so is explicitly a bean archive, and
> implicit as the inverse of this.
> >If you've got other suggestions, I would love to hear them, but as usual,
> this is the best *I* was able to come up with, and so complaining without
> providing alternative ideas won't actually result in any improvement ;-)
> >Begin forwarded message:
> >From: "Mark Struberg (JIRA)" <jira-events at lists.jboss.org>
> >>Subject: [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean discovery
> and @WithAnnotations
> >>Date: 11 March 2013 08:08:41 GMT
> >>To: pmuir at bleepbleep.org.uk
> >>Mark Struberg commented on CDI-346
> >>Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
> >> Agree. Plus it's also not possible in an Extension to know from which
> 'kind' of bean archive the current PAT did come from. We e.g. cannot make
> this depending on any previously fired ProcessModule event as CDI
> containers might run the discovery in parallel threads.
> >>If some Extension gets a PAT with a class without any scope, should it
> handle this class? Well, that depends whether this BDA is an 'automatic' or
> a 'non-pickup' (whatever non-intuitive wording got chosen finally) bean
> >>This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> >>If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA
> >>For more information on JIRA, see:
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev