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

[Martin Kouba]

Dne 21.10.2016 v 15:45 Antoine Sabot-Durand napsal(a):
> 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.

Sounds weird. We provide a contract (XSD) but don't require the contract 
to be fulfilled..

 From impl point of view - there might be problems similar to the 
SAXParser example I mentioned. If you provide an XSD, the tool/library 
may automatically fill the version with default value.

I'm not really sure what to do here. Maybe look at other specs first?

>
>> 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
>