[cdi-dev] Managing Dependent Scoped Beans

Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibucau at gmail.com
Sun May 15 12:29:23 EDT 2016

Was to the fact destroy should be used with the relative instance only and
unspecified with an unkown instance - we have both behaviors in impl AFAIK
so not sure we can break users specifying it now.

Le 15 mai 2016 17:14, "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Romain,
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 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,
> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/trunk/webbeans-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/webbeans/inject/instance/InstanceImpl.java#L293 so
> 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.
> John
>> > - 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/20160515/46e531a5/attachment.html 

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list