[cdi-dev] bean archives
Jozef Hartinger
jharting at redhat.com
Tue May 5 01:06:27 EDT 2015
No, it's not the case that "all CDI 1.0 implementor checks all jars
having beans.xml and then merge the classes to the module bean archive".
Some CDI 1.0 implementations implement the spec properly including the
fine granularity of Chapter 12, some don't and since the TCK for CDI 1.0
is does not test much in this area it allows both groups to pass. That
was fixed in subsequent TCK releases.
On 05/04/2015 11:52 PM, Emily Jiang wrote:
> ah. ok. For cdi 1.0, if all the implementor checks all jars having
> beans.xml and then merge the classes to the module bean archive, this
> will be fine. I think a spec issue will be raised to update section 5.
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de
> <mailto:struberg at yahoo.de>> wrote:
>
> The CDI-1.0 TCK initially did not check anything in that regard. A
> test got added in a _very_ late version. This was in fact released
> AFTER CDI-1.1 was published if I remember correctly. So this
> version is not even part of the EE6 TCK…
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 04.05.2015 um 09:07 schrieb Jozef Hartinger
> <jharting at redhat.com <mailto:jharting at redhat.com>>:
> >
> > Yes, chapter 5 is a bit confusing when it comes to composite
> Java EE modules. Comments inline:
> >
> > On 05/03/2015 12:20 AM, Emily Jiang wrote:
> >> I agree with Mark. I am confused about section 5 and section
> 12. Weld-2 leaves the work of specifying the bean archive to the
> integrator. I am wondering how the new version of app server using
> Weld-2 can pass the CDI 1.1/1.2 CTS at all if the integrator
> creates its bean archives based on section 12.
> > The TCK for CDI 1.0, 1,1 and 1.2 expect Chapter 12 to be
> implemented. Therefore, implementing bean archive as defined in
> Chapter 12 is the right approach for a Weld integrator.
> >>
> >> I am guessing CDI 1.1/1.2 cts, the updated version of CDI
> 1.0(?), is based on section 5. Can someone confirm? The spec
> needs to be updated to remove the conflict between section 5 and
> section 12.
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Emily Jiang <emijiang6 at googlemail.com
> <mailto:emijiang6 at googlemail.com>>
> >> Date: Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:21 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] bean archives
> >> To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de <mailto:struberg at yahoo.de>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree with Mark. I am confused about section 5 and section
> 12. Weld-2 leaves the work of specifying the bean archive to the
> integrator. I am wondering how the new version of app server using
> Weld-2 can pass the CDI 1.1/1.2 CTS at all if the integrator
> creates its bean archives based on section 12.
> >>
> >> I am guessing CDI 1.1/1.2 cts, the updated version of CDI
> 1.0(?), is based on section 5. Can someone confirm? The spec
> needs to be updated to remove the conflict between section 5 and
> section 12.
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mark Struberg
> <struberg at yahoo.de <mailto:struberg at yahoo.de>> wrote:
> >> Actually the rules are still not clear. Section 5 and 12
> contradict each other. The EE6 RI, JBossAS6 and TomEE and WAS did
> behave like in section 5 (1 BDA per ee-module) whereas Weld-2
> behaves like in section 12.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Saturday, 2 May 2015, 10:13, Antoine Sabot-Durand
> <antoine at sabot-durand.net <mailto:antoine at sabot-durand.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Emily,
> >>
> >> The rules) apply to each jar (archive). There is no merging,
> thus an app can contain three types of archives :
> >> Non bean archives,
> >> Implicit bean archives,
> >> Explicit bean archives.
> >>
> >> Antoine Sabot-Durand
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 1 mai 2015 à 23:03, Emily Jiang <emijiang6 at googlemail.com
> <mailto:emijiang6 at googlemail.com>> a écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I have a question on bean archives.
> >>>
> >>> For the jars under web-inf\lib, are they individual bean
> archives or they should be merged with web-inf\classes files and
> use the beans.xml under web-inf\ to form one bean archive?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If they are merged together to form one bean archive, what
> will happen if they have their own beans.xml under Meta-inf dir?
> >>>
> >>> Below is the what spec says, but it does not mention the jar
> under web-inf\lib. The spec should make this situation clear.
> >>>
> >>> In the CDI1.2 spec:
> >>> When determining which archives are bean archives, the
> container must consider:
> >>> • Library jars, EJB jars or application client jars
> >>> • The WEB-INF/classes directory of a war
> >>> • Directories in the JVM classpath
> >>> The container is not required to support application client
> jar bean archives.
> >>> A Java EE container is required by the Java EE specification
> to support Java EE modules. Other
> >>> containers may or may not provide support for war, EJB jar or
> rar bean archives.
> >>> The beans.xml file must be named:
> >>> • META-INF/beans.xml , or,
> >>> • in a war, WEB-INF/beans.xml or
> WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/beans.xml.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Emily
> >>> =================
> >>> Emily Jiang
> >>> ejiang at apache.org <mailto:ejiang at apache.org>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks
> >> Emily
> >> =================
> >> Emily Jiang
> >> ejiang at apache.org <mailto:ejiang at apache.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks
> >> Emily
> >> =================
> >> Emily Jiang
> >> ejiang at apache.org <mailto:ejiang at apache.org>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>
> >> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Emily
> =================
> Emily Jiang
> ejiang at apache.org <mailto:ejiang at apache.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150505/c2231cc6/attachment-0001.html
More information about the cdi-dev
mailing list