[cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
Mark Struberg
struberg at yahoo.de
Wed Jan 14 11:19:31 EST 2015
paragraphs and arguing?
Here comes mine:
6.7.5 just defines
"The container provides a built-in bean with bean type Conversation, scope @RequestScoped, and qualifier @Default, named javax.enterprise.context.conversation."
It doesn't state that the bean must be available under
#{javax.enterprise.context.conversation} to the EL. This is simply just implicated by the bean.name rules.
There are 3 usages defined for Bean<T>.getName().
1.) paragraph 3.13 The qualifier @Named at injection points:
It is a Qualifier. Thus you could use
@Inject
@Named("javax.enterprise.context.conversation")
Object conversation;
2.) paragraph 11.3.7 Obtaining a Bean by name:
It makes a bean able to be looked up via BeanManager#getBeans(String)
public Set<Bean<?>> getBeans("javax.enterprise.context.conversation");
3.) paragraph 2.6 Bean names:
It makes a bean visible to EL. BUT read the specified paragraph really carefula!
"A bean may have a bean name. A bean with a name may be referred to by its name in Unified EL expressions. A valid bean name is a period-separated list of valid EL identifiers.
The important part is "list of _VALID_ EL identifiers"
What does this paragraph mean at all?
Does this mean that #{javax} is possible as is #{enterprise}, #{context} and #{conversation}? Because all those are valid EL identifiers, wheras the combined string is NOT a valid EL identifier.
If not and we go for your interpretation then we would also need to support code like
@Named("oh.uh.some.other.weird.el.name"}
public class TotallyNonsenseService
You can turn this as you like. It simply makes no sense at all to support it as EL name.
But there is a third option: This is just no valid EL identifier and thus it is not exposed to EL but only to mechanism 1.) (@Inject @Named) and 2.) (getBeans(String)).
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
> Cc: Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>; Edward Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com>; Cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 16:49
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
>
> I’m afraid I disagree with the reasoning you present and your statements below.
>
>
>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 15:46, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> The spec only says that the Bean must have this name. All the rest is some
> 3-rd level 'implicit' arguing. The spec does NOT say that the EL
> "javax...." must give you a Conversation...
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>> To: Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Edward Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com>; Cdi-dev
> <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 12:20
>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "."
> is not valid in an EL name.
>>>
>>> I don’t think they should be excluded. The spec isn’t ambiguous about
> this, and
>>> it is supportable.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:13, Jozef Hartinger
> <jharting at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So for CDI 1.2 the test that tests this should not be excluded
> after all,
>>> correct?
>>>>
>>>> On 01/14/2015 11:56 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>>> We need to go for both (A) and (B).
>>>>>
>>>>> We would need to deprecate the existing name before we can
> allow it to
>>> not be supported. This means CDI 3. So I would suggest we deprecate it
> in 2, add
>>> an alternative that can be used, and then consider removing it in CDI
> 3. In the
>>> meantime for CDI 2, we will need to improve the TCK to check this more
>>> carefully.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 10:09, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> <rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for B (IMO it is not used that much)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau
>>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-01-14 10:54 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger
>>> <jharting at redhat.com>:
>>>>>>> I think further action is needed on this. Now that it
> has been
>>> confirmed
>>>>>>> that "javax.enterprise.context.conversation"
> itself
>>> is not a valid EL
>>>>>>> name we should either:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) Require all CDI implementations to adapt the
> property-based
>>> approach
>>>>>>> which allows this to be implemented portably (as Weld
> does)
>>>>>>> B) Declare publicly that although the CDI spec declares
> the
>>> given name,
>>>>>>> it is a bug and applications should not use the name.
> (What
>>> about
>>>>>>> compatibility with existing applications?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jozef
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/08/2015 09:27 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear CDI fellows!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've received an answer regarding our EL
> question from
>>> the EL Spec Lead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ed, thanks for helping us!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 23:14, Edward Burns
>
>>> <edward.burns at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Mark,
>>>>>>>>> To close this out, no, "." is not
> valid in an
>>> EL name. An EL name
>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>> be a java identifier. I'm told this was
> discussed
>>> by Pete a long time
>>>>>>>>> ago in the EL 3.0 EG.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> | edward.burns at oracle.com | office: +1 407 458
> 0017
>>>>>>>>> | 42 days til DevNexus 2015
>>>>>>>>> | 52 days til JavaLand 2015
>>>>>>>>> | 62 days til CONFESS 2015
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>
More information about the cdi-dev
mailing list