[cdi-dev] Thoughts about CDI-527

John D. Ament john.d.ament at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 10:51:11 EST 2016

I don't believe that loosening the rules would introduce a backwards
compatibility issues.


On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:46 AM Antoine Sabot-Durand <
antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:

> Hi guys,
> Re-reading materials and all our discussion on CDI-527, I think there's an
> option we didn't explore
> Instead of introducing a new annotation, we could loose rules on proxied
> bean creation for class having final methods.
> Today if you declare a class requiring a proxy (because of scope or AOP)
> you'll get an exception, so nobody declares a bean with such a feature
> since the app wouldn't deploy.
> It's the same for producer: you won't declare an @ApplicationScoped
> producer for a type having final method since your app won't deploy.
> So in today existing code, final method are in non cdi code or in cdi code
> that doesn't requires proxy (@Dependent without AOP)
> If we decide to loose the rules in "3.15 Unproxyable bean types" [1] it
> won't have impact on existing code (unless I missed something), since you
> can't have proxied bean with final method without deployment error.
> It would only allow new proxied bean with final method in it.
> Change should also be made in "7.2. Container invocations and
> interception" [2] to explicitly exclude final methods from the list of
> business method.
> This change could be seen as not backward compatible, but since current
> code cannot have proxied bean with final class it doesn't change existing
> behavior but allow new usage.
> It also allow code with producer for class of the JDK introducing final in
> their code to continue working seamlessly in CDI 2.0.
> Finally that prevent us to introduce specific annotation or configuration
> looking like a hack.
> In the past we already introduce behavior changes when we changed the list
> of bean defining annotation in CDI 1.2 or when we loose usage of certain
> beanManager method in AfterBeanDiscovery event (I see this proposal very
> like this last example).
> Wdyt ?
> Antoine
> [1] http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#unproxyable
> [2] http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#biz_method
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20160216/e79e7d84/attachment.html 

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list