[cdi-dev] Managing Dependent Scoped Beans

John D. Ament john.d.ament at gmail.com
Sun May 15 11:14:21 EDT 2016


On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>

> Hi Jon
> Le 15 mai 2016 16:15, "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament at gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > Hey guys
> >
> > Seems like we have some issues in JIRA all focused on managing the
> lifecycle of Dependent scoped beans.  It also seems like we have many
> differing opinions about how to manage them.
> >
> > - Martin raised a PR to add a release() method to Instance to help
> destroy a dependent bean https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/286
> > - I raised a PR https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/289 to update the
> spec to clarify how to manage a dependent scoped bean.
> >
> > Right now, it seems that the big disagreement is whether
> Instance.destroy() can destroy objects not created by it (the case being
> around the CDI utility class, being an impl of Instance).  I'm currently
> heavily against Martin's proposed changes, but want to get input from
> others on the group to understand their perspective.
> >
> > - Does the spec require destroy() to be called only on instances that it
> created?  When I read 5.6.1 the only requirement I see is that it has to be
> a dependent scoped bean.  Note when I ask this I'm asking from the spec
> perspective, its a different problem if there's some issues with
> implementations following suite (I would imagine there needs to be some
> shared global registry of dependent scoped beans for this to work).
> >
> Sound the only clean impl. Any other is not symmetric and potentially lead
> to "oops this time it didnt work". I also not seeing any use case
> limitation with that so think it is the same solution

I'm not sure I follow or if this isn't an answer to "Does the spec require
destroy() to be called only on instances that it created?" ?

Anyways I did look a bit closer and it seems that Martin's statement is
consistent with how OWB works,
I wonder if there's a part of the spec I'm missing, or if there was some
offline agreement on how to understand it.


> > - Do we want two methods that effectively do the same thing?  I don't
> see a strong difference between the two.
> >
> > On the flipside, my change is more a spec clarification.  I'm thinking
> more now that it belongs as a reword of 5.6.1 to clarify how to use
> destroy() on dependent beans, rather than where I put it.  I think
> realistically we have all of the tools needed to manage the lifecycle of
> these classes, just need to clarify them for people to use.
> >
> > John
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20160515/2e915168/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list