[cdi-dev] beans.xml quiz for Friday afternoon

[Antoine Sabot-Durand]

Usually I like quizzes, but this one is a bit harsh for a Friday ;).

Since the spec doesn’t say anything about xml validation, I don’t think we can take it into consideration for container behaviour.

> Le 21 oct. 2016 à 15:23, Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com> a écrit :
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> today I struggled with weird beans.xml parsing problems and I found out 
> that this part of CDI might deserve some clarification. Below are few 
> examples. And not all of them have obvious interpretation.
> 
> Also note that the spec still contains invalid beans.xml snippets (see 
> also CDI-449).

Do you mean, there are still invalid snipers after Tomas PR ?

> 1. empty beans.xml marker file
> - spec VALID, bean-discovey-mode="ALL"
> - XSD validation not needed
> 2. <beans/>
> - spec VALID, bean-discovey-mode="ALL"
> - XSD validation not possible
> 3. <beans xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee">
> - spec VALID, Java EE 6 namespace, ie. CDI 1.0, bean-discovey-mode="ALL"
> - XSD validation OK (against beans_1_0.xsd)
> 
> 4. <beans xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee">
> - spec VALID
> - XSD validation ERROR - Java EE 7 namespace, i.e. CDI 1.1+ and 
> bean-discovey-mode attribute is required
> - note that version is defaulted to "1.1" (and e.g. SAXParser fills this 
> value automatically)
> - what's the correct bean-discovey-mode? => I would expect ANNOTATED 
> because we're in EE 7 and it's the default bean discovery mode
> - bean-discovey-mode attribute is required, not defaulted
> - current Weld behavior: ALL

As I said in introduction I don’t think we can take xsd into consideration to decide container behaviour.
So IMO here Weld behaviour is the expected one:

"A bean archive which contains a beans.xml file with no version has a default bean discovery mode of all"

> 
> 5. <beans xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee" version="1.1">
> - spec INVALID, "A bean archive which contains a beans.xml file with 
> version 1.1 (or later) must specify the bean-discovey-mode attribute. 
> The default value for the attribute is annotated."
> - XSD validation ERROR, bean-discovey-mode attribute is required
> - what's the correct bean-discovey-mode? => I would expect ANNOTATED
> - current Weld behavior: ALL

IMO, deployment should fail or we should rephrase the spec (backward compatibility?)

> 
> 6. <beans version="1.1">
> - spec INVALID, the same as above
> - XSD validation not possible
> - what's the correct bean-discovey-mode? => I would expect ANNOTATED
> - current Weld behavior: ALL

Same as 5 for me

> 
> 7. <beans version="1.1" bean-discovery-mode="annotated">
> - spec VALID, bean-discovey-mode="ANNOTATED"
> - XSD validation not possible
> 

NP

> 8. <beans version="1.1" bean-discovery-mode="all" 
> xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee">
> - spec VALID, bean-discovey-mode="ALL"
> - XSD VALID
> 
> 
> We may consider adding default value for bean-discovey-mode, and maybe 
> rewording the spec text. But I'm no XML guru so maybe I'm missing something.

Again we don’t have any mention of valid XML file (regarding XSD) in the spec, so there might be a lot of broken beans.xml file around. Making this straight could break these apps.

wdyt ?

> Thanks,
> 
> Martin

Antoine