[cdi-dev] TCK and spec question

[Jozef Hartinger]

Correct.
On 12/22/2014 09:59 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> While we are at it: This is actually true for ALL System Events, right?
> So we should not define it in PAT but somewhere more general imo.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:56, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, we should explicitly define those other cases as non-portable if it
>> has not been done yet.
>>
>> On 12/22/2014 09:49 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>   well, it's just the tip of the iceberg. It would be way easier to just
>> define any 'modification' as non-portable. That would be much more
>> precise and easier as well. And really covers al the edge cases as well.
>>>   LieGrue,
>>>   strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:42, Jozef Hartinger
>> <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>   On 12/22/2014 09:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>     No you can NOT I fear.
>>>>>
>>>>>     How do you make sure that the AnnotatedType someone added
>> doesn't get
>>>>   changed later? We have no whatever control over it. If some programmer
>> like to
>>>>   make it mutable, well then it is that way and we have no chance to
>> detect that
>>>>   :(
>>>>>     Imo the only thing we can do is to point programmers to the fact
>> that this
>>>>   is stupid -> non-portable behaviour.
>>>>   Correct. This is stupid. But allowing setAnnotatedType() to be called
>>>>   anytime does not help this at all.
>>>>
>>>>   The fact that we throw the exception on setAnnotatedType() prevents a
>>>>   class of bad things from happening. At the same time it does not
>> prevent
>>>>   the other one that you mentioned. The fact that we cannot prevent all
>> of
>>>>   them does not mean that we should not try to prevent those we can.
>>>>
>>>>>     LieGrue,
>>>>>     strub
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:29, Jozef Hartinger
>>>>   <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>     On 12/21/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>>>       Hi!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       I just came across this little sentence in the spec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       11.5.6 "If any ProcessAnnotatedType method is
>> called outside
>>>>   of the
>>>>>>     observer method invocation, an IllegalStateException is
>> thrown."
>>>>>>>       I don't believe such a limitation helps much. What
>> about
>>>>   extensions who
>>>>>>     do a setAnnotatedType and change this instance in a later
>> phase?
>>>>>>     Such as?
>>>>>>>         We have no whatever chance to prevent this anyway.
>>>>>>     We can prevent that by throwing the exception, rather than
>> silently
>>>>>>     ignoring that the extension is doing something wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       So why not just say that if a CDI System Event gets
>> modified
>>>>   outside of the
>>>>>>     method it gets injected into then non portable behaviour
>> results.
>>>>>>>       LieGrue,
>>>>>>>       strub
>>>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>       cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>      cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>      https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       Note that for all code provided on this list, the
>> provider
>>>>   licenses the
>>>>>>     code under the Apache License, Version 2
>>>>>>     (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
>> other ideas
>>>>   provided
>>>>>>     on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
>> intellectual
>>>>   property
>>>>>>     rights inherent in such information.
>>>>>>