[cdi-dev] Doubt about bean discovery default behaviour
j.j.snyder at oracle.com
Thu May 2 10:29:40 EDT 2013
Auto-discovery is enabled by default for GlassFish. So it will scan all
archives in the application for bean-defining annotations. You can
disable this by doing the following:
Can you send me your app? I'll take a deeper look into it.
On 04/29/2013 01:01 PM, Michel Graciano wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have been reading the CDI spec and did some little tests with a
> prototype we have here and I am facing a issue when I deploy our
> application at GF 4 (which has guava as ine of the dependencies):
> org.jboss.weld.exceptions.DeploymentException: WELD-001408 Unsatisfied
> dependencies for type [Set<Service>] with qualifiers [@Default] at
> injection point [[BackedAnnotatedParameter] Parameter 1 of
> [BackedAnnotatedConstructor] @Inject
> Basically I am facing it because guava has some classes annotated with
> @Inject and the container by default are scanning all the deps.
> I have read the spec and for me it is not clear what the default
> behaviour is, if the container should or not scan all the dependencies
> when my app is supposedly following 1.0 spec (see our beans.xml
> above). Digging a little bit more, I found a issue  which says
> basically that 'Auto-discover is false by default in CDI 1.1 and the
> attribute is required...', which for me means that by default the
> container should work as CDI 1.0 at this matter. Reading the spec a
> little further I found 'For compatibility with Contexts and Dependency
> 1.0, products must contain an option to cause an archive to be ignored
> by the container when no beans.xml is present.' (which is the case for
> guava library) which could means that by default the container will
> not work as expected by CDI 1.0, so we have an incompatible change here.
> Our beans.xml file has just this content:
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <beans xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee"
> My question here is: Am I facing a issue at Weld/GF 4
> (glassfish-4.0-b86) or it is the default behaviour expected for CDI
> 1.1 specification?
> IMHO this behaviour should be clear at the specification, maybe
> following as did by JSR 344 adding a 'Breakages in Backward
> Compatibility' section for changelog section if it is the case.
> I am sorry if this question have already been asked, but I was unable
> to find it (I swear I tried :).
> Thanks in advance.
>  https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-321
> Michel Graciano
> Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento
> Betha Sistemas Ltda.
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev