[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-627) fix wording regression for beans.xml alternative check introduced in 1.2

Matej Novotny (JIRA) issues at jboss.org
Thu Sep 8 04:28:00 EDT 2016


    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-627?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13290305#comment-13290305 ] 

Matej Novotny commented on CDI-627:
-----------------------------------

To clarify, the deal is the following (please correct me if I am wrong [~struberg]):
 * *In CDI 1.0* -> If there is *<NO CLASS>* with the specified name, or if the class with the specified name is not an alternative bean class, the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a deployment problem.
 * *Current state of spec* -> If there is *<NO BEAN>* whose bean class has the specified name, or if no bean whose bean class has the specified name is an alternative, the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a deployment problem.

So basically by Vetoing the alternative (or excluding) it does not become a bean, hence the {{beans.xml}} will be considered invalid.

> fix wording regression for beans.xml alternative check introduced in 1.2
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CDI-627
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-627
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Concepts
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.Final
>            Reporter: Mark Struberg
>
> My scenario is the following:
> I have an @Alternative MockMailService class which should only be used during testing to not send out 5k mails to customers and employees when running the unit and integration test suite.
> {code}
> @Alternative
> @ApplicationScoped
> @Exclude(ifProjectStage=Production.class)
> public class MockMailService implements MailService {...}
> {code}
> Of course I only need to activate it in beans.xml:
> {code}
> <beans>
>   <alternatives>
>     <class>org.acme.MockMailService</class>
>   </alternatives>
> </beans>
> {code}
> This is perfectly fine in CDI 1.0 but might be interpreted as not be allowed in the CDI 1.2 wording paragraph 5.1.1.2. "Declaring selected alternatives for a bean archive".
> Please note that we introduced a check in CDI 1.0 purely to help the customer eagerly detect possible wrong configuration. E.g. if he simply has a typo in the classname. It was _not_ intended to restrict useful use cases!
> What the intention was: all is fine IF one of
> * There exists a class T with the given name
> * That class T (or a contained producer field or producer method) is annotated with @Alternative
> * There is a Bean<T> with isAlternative() == true



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)


More information about the cdi-dev mailing list