<div dir="ltr">Pete,<div><br></div><div>Thanks a lot for your contribution. I started as EC member roughly when JSR 299 went into Public Draft. And among the few in the EC who also still work on code and in EGs I helped Mike Keith (who also has other duties at Oracle and is no longer involved in JCP work AFAIK) negotiate and coordinate how the new JSR 330 (@Inject) and 299 could best work together instead of reinventing the wheel.</div><div><br></div><div>I must say, it went rather well also thanks to Pete and other colleagues. CDI practically became a synonym for DI since then and plays a more important role in Java EE with every new version.</div><div><br></div><div>I know Antoine since we tried to start a JSR for Social Media on top of CDI. Which wasn't approved, but we learned a lot in the process and defining an Open Source project for it instead. So I know, Antoine will carry the CDI torch well and help ensure, it continues to burn bright in the Java ecosystem.</div><div><br></div><div>All the best for your future role,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Calibri">Werner </span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:29 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev-owner@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev-owner@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: O Captain! My Captain! (John D. Ament)<br>
2. Tomorrow's agenda (Antoine Sabot-Durand)<br>
3. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-554) Additional built-in beans do not have<br>
a scope defined (Martin Kouba (JIRA))<br>
4. Clarification on the difference on Vetoed and exclude filters<br>
regarding Java EE component classes (Emily Jiang)<br>
5. Bean<T> that only qualifies super types? (arjan tijms)<br>
6. Re: Clarification on the difference on Vetoed and exclude<br>
filters regarding Java EE component classes (Martin Kouba)<br>
7. Re: Clarification on the difference on Vetoed and exclude<br>
filters regarding Java EE component classes (Emily Jiang)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:19:37 +0000<br>
From: "John D. Ament" <<a href="mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com">john.d.ament@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] O Captain! My Captain!<br>
To: Pete Muir <<a href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@redhat.com</a>>, Antoine Sabot-Durand<br>
<<a href="mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net">antoine@sabot-durand.net</a>><br>
Cc: cdi-dev <<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAOqetn98z6VcX+0zSqe8N=<a href="mailto:ytacXMy0EfRQRTN1uN2dCxFofJhQ@mail.gmail.com">ytacXMy0EfRQRTN1uN2dCxFofJhQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Pete,<br>
<br>
Thank you for these last few years. Its been a pleasure seeing the CDI<br>
ecosystem grow from where it started. All the best!<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:00 AM Pete Muir <<a href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Thank you everyone for all your help over the last few years, I?ve really<br>
> enjoyed CDI, and tried to hang on as long as I could. You?ll probably have<br>
> noticed I?ve barely been around for the last 6 months, and so it?s<br>
> definitely for the best that I leave it in the very capable hands of<br>
> Antoine :-)<br>
><br>
> Pete<br>
><br>
> > On 30 Jul 2015, at 14:11, Antoine Sabot-Durand <<a href="mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net">antoine@sabot-durand.net</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Guys,<br>
> ><br>
> > Just to inform you that Pete is stepping down his spec lead role on CDI<br>
> as he's going to take new responsibilities at Red Hat.<br>
> ><br>
> > I think that we can thank him for the awesome work he did on CDI from<br>
> the beginning and wish him good luck for his new adventure in IT.<br>
> ><br>
> > Goodbye Pete, and thanks for all the Beans ;)<br>
> ><br>
> > Antoine<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the<br>
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<br>
> <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas<br>
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
><br>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the<br>
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<br>
> <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas<br>
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150801/e1843ea5/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150801/e1843ea5/attachment-0001.html</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:12:10 +0000<br>
From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <<a href="mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net">antoine@sabot-durand.net</a>><br>
Subject: [cdi-dev] Tomorrow's agenda<br>
To: cdi-dev <<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CABu-YBS2c3zfuu=ewFoV6vrXsPPVT-b_f=<a href="mailto:jrMDEFmg6m5O6CCw@mail.gmail.com">jrMDEFmg6m5O6CCw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi guys,<br>
<br>
for tomorrow's meeting I propose we start discussing face to face meeting<br>
content.<br>
<br>
If we have time we'll deal with remaining features in Java SE support.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Antoine<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150803/a35afa24/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150803/a35afa24/attachment-0001.html</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 04:20:<a href="tel:03%20-0400" value="+4930400">03 -0400</a> (EDT)<br>
From: "Martin Kouba (JIRA)" <<a href="mailto:issues@jboss.org">issues@jboss.org</a>><br>
Subject: [cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-554) Additional built-in beans do<br>
not have a scope defined<br>
To: <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<JIRA.12580458.1438849173000.176286.1438849203512@Atlassian.JIRA><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
Martin Kouba created CDI-554:<br>
--------------------------------<br>
<br>
Summary: Additional built-in beans do not have a scope defined<br>
Key: CDI-554<br>
URL: <a href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-554" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-554</a><br>
Project: CDI Specification Issues<br>
Issue Type: Clarification<br>
Affects Versions: 2.0-EDR1<br>
Reporter: Martin Kouba<br>
<br>
<br>
See section 17.8. Additional built-in beans - a scope is not defined for UserTransaction, Principal, HttpServletRequest, etc. Maybe it's defined somewhere else but I cannot find anything.<br>
<br>
In Weld, Java EE beans are {{@Dependent}}, HttpServletRequest and ServletContext are {{@RequestScoped}} and HttpSession is {{@SessionScoped}}.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA<br>
(v6.3.15#6346)<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:55:58 +0100<br>
From: Emily Jiang <<a href="mailto:EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com">EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com</a>><br>
Subject: [cdi-dev] Clarification on the difference on Vetoed and<br>
exclude filters regarding Java EE component classes<br>
To: <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:OFCB816FBA.16D9AE24-ON80257E99.004AC515-80257E99.004C8B38@uk.ibm.com">OFCB816FBA.16D9AE24-ON80257E99.004AC515-80257E99.004C8B38@uk.ibm.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
In the section 3.6. Java EE components of CDI 1.2 specification, it has<br>
the following statement:<br>
<br>
It is safe to annotate Java EE components with @Vetoed to prevent them<br>
being considered beans.<br>
<br>
According to my understanding, the JavaEE component classes with @Vetoed<br>
should still support injections and ProcessInjectionTarget events should<br>
still be fired.<br>
<br>
In the 12.4.2, it states:<br>
If the filter is active, and: .... then we say that the type is excluded<br>
from discovery.<br>
<br>
Does this mean if a JavaEE component class is excluded from the scan in<br>
the beans.xml, its CDI involvement should be ignored (@Inject would be<br>
ignored etc)?<br>
<br>
Many thanks,<br>
Emily<br>
===========================<br>
Emily Jiang<br>
WebSphere Application Server Liberty Profile development, CDI Development<br>
Lead<br>
<br>
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN<br>
Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278<br>
<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:emijiang@uk.ibm.com">emijiang@uk.ibm.com</a><br>
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB<br>
<br>
Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number<br>
741598.<br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150806/94829138/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150806/94829138/attachment-0001.html</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:07:54 +0200<br>
From: arjan tijms <<a href="mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com">arjan.tijms@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: [cdi-dev] Bean<T> that only qualifies super types?<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAE=-AhDnoaL=<a href="mailto:0kF%2ByZSEMHXzzQ_G6cx0D0FzAyc2-tm0LLcNGQ@mail.gmail.com">0kF+yZSEMHXzzQ_G6cx0D0FzAyc2-tm0LLcNGQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I'm wondering if it's possible in CDI to only require a qualifier for<br>
one of the Types in the getTypes collection of a Bean<T><br>
implementation.<br>
<br>
The use case is that I have an abstract class, say Foo, that<br>
implements some interface, say Map:<br>
<br>
public abstract class Foo implements Map<String, Object> {<br>
public abstract void someMethod();<br>
}<br>
<br>
Then a Bean<T> implementation creates an instance of Foo:<br>
<br>
public class MyBean implements Bean<Foo> {<br>
<br>
@Override<br>
public Class<?> getBeanClass() {<br>
return Foo.class;<br>
}<br>
<br>
@Override<br>
public Set<Type> getTypes() {<br>
return new HashSet<Type>(asList(Foo.class, Map.class));<br>
}<br>
<br>
@Override<br>
public Integer create(CreationalContext<Integer> creationalContext) {<br>
return new FooImpl();<br>
}<br>
<br>
@Override<br>
public Class<? extends Annotation> getScope() {<br>
return RequestScoped.class;<br>
}<br>
<br>
// ...<br>
}<br>
<br>
Now the problem is that I don't want to produce Map really, as this<br>
may cause an ambiguity with possibly other Map producers. I only want<br>
to produce Foo.<br>
<br>
However, when I limit the getTypes set to contain only Foo:<br>
<br>
@Override<br>
public Set<Type> getTypes() {<br>
return new HashSet<Type>(asList(Foo.class));<br>
}<br>
<br>
And I subsequently inject Foo:<br>
<br>
@Inject<br>
private Foo foo;<br>
<br>
And then call a method from Map on foo:<br>
<br>
foo.clear();<br>
<br>
CDI (Weld 2.2.2.Final in this case) will throw an exception:<br>
<br>
"java.lang.AbstractMethodError: Method<br>
org/jboss/weldx/test/Foo$Proxy$_$$_WeldClientProxy.clear()V is<br>
abstract"<br>
<br>
So it looks like CDI (Weld) needs Map.class listed in the getTypes<br>
collection to fully create the proxy. Without it, the proxy only<br>
implements methods that are directly defined by Foo (only<br>
someMethod(); in this example).<br>
<br>
I therefor would like to add a qualifier such that the Map portion of<br>
the type needs the qualifier:<br>
<br>
@Inject @SomeQualifier<br>
private Map map;<br>
<br>
But Foo can still be injected without qualifier:<br>
<br>
@Inject<br>
private Foo foo;<br>
<br>
Is this possible already? Does something in the spec needs to be<br>
changed for this? (the concrete use case btw is the CDI alignment of<br>
JSF 2.3, where I'm trying to create a Bean<T> for<br>
javax.faces.context.Flash)<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Arjan Tijms<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 16:24:41 +0200<br>
From: Martin Kouba <<a href="mailto:mkouba@redhat.com">mkouba@redhat.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification on the difference on Vetoed and<br>
exclude filters regarding Java EE component classes<br>
To: Emily Jiang <<a href="mailto:EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com">EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:55C36E29.2040809@redhat.com">55C36E29.2040809@redhat.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Dne 6.8.2015 v 15:55 Emily Jiang napsal(a):<br>
> In the section 3.6. Java EE components of CDI 1.2 specification, it has<br>
> the following statement:<br>
><br>
> /It is safe to annotate Java EE components with //@Vetoed //to prevent<br>
> them being considered beans./<br>
><br>
> According to my understanding, the JavaEE component classes with @Vetoed<br>
> should still support injections and *ProcessInjectionTarget*events<br>
> should still be fired.<br>
><br>
> In the 12.4.2, it states:<br>
> /If the filter is active, and: .... then we say that the type is<br>
> excluded from discovery./<br>
><br>
> Does this mean if a JavaEE component class is excluded from the scan in<br>
> the beans.xml, its CDI involvement should be ignored (@Inject would be<br>
> ignored etc)?<br>
<br>
I don't think so. I believe the intent of "3.6. Java EE components" is<br>
to clarify that if a component class (e.g. a servlet class) is also<br>
recognized as a managed bean [1] there will be two different<br>
"components" in your applicaion, each managed by a different Java EE<br>
technology - e.g. a servlet managed by the servlet container and a CDI<br>
bean with servlet class in its set of bean types.<br>
<br>
The servlet has a different lifecycle, it's managed by a servlet<br>
container and as such must support injection (but cannot be injected, etc.).<br>
<br>
This might be confusing and therefore it's a good idea to veto the Java<br>
EE component classes -> there will be no CDI bean definitions based on<br>
the component classes.<br>
<br>
[1]<br>
<a href="http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#what_classes_are_beans" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#what_classes_are_beans</a><br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> Many thanks,<br>
> Emily<br>
> ===========================<br>
> Emily Jiang<br>
> WebSphere Application Server Liberty Profile development, CDI<br>
> Development Lead<br>
><br>
> MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN<br>
> Phone: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%291962%20816278" value="+441962816278">+44 (0)1962 816278</a> Internal: 246278<br>
><br>
> Email: <a href="mailto:emijiang@uk.ibm.com">emijiang@uk.ibm.com</a><br>
> Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB<br>
><br>
> Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number<br>
> 741598.<br>
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
><br>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
Martin Kouba<br>
Software Engineer<br>
Red Hat, Czech Republic<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:29:09 +0100<br>
From: Emily Jiang <<a href="mailto:EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com">EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification on the difference on Vetoed and<br>
exclude filters regarding Java EE component classes<br>
To: Martin Kouba <<a href="mailto:mkouba@redhat.com">mkouba@redhat.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org</a>, <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:OF6AD439B7.C81121A5-ON80257E9A.002E1FCA-80257E9A.002E9F79@uk.ibm.com">OF6AD439B7.C81121A5-ON80257E9A.002E1FCA-80257E9A.002E9F79@uk.ibm.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Thanks Martin for your reply! Your reply confirmed my understanding of<br>
@Vetoed.<br>
<br>
What is the expected behaviour if I exclude my JavaEE component class in<br>
the filter under beans.xml? Will this cause the JavaEE component class<br>
being ignored by CDI or this should have the same effect as being<br>
annotated as @Vetoed?<br>
<br>
"In the 12.4.2, it states: If the filter is active, and: .... then we say<br>
that the type is excluded from discovery."<br>
<br>
Does the above discovery mean both type and bean discovery or just bean<br>
discovery? If it means both type and bean discovery, the classes should be<br>
ignored by CDI. Please confirm.<br>
<br>
Many thanks,<br>
Emily<br>
===========================<br>
Emily Jiang<br>
WebSphere Application Server Liberty Profile development, CDI Development<br>
Lead<br>
<br>
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN<br>
Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278<br>
<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:emijiang@uk.ibm.com">emijiang@uk.ibm.com</a><br>
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Martin Kouba <<a href="mailto:mkouba@redhat.com">mkouba@redhat.com</a>><br>
To: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>,<br>
Date: 07/08/2015 03:40<br>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification on the difference on Vetoed<br>
and exclude filters regarding Java EE component classes<br>
Sent by: <a href="mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dne 6.8.2015 v 15:55 Emily Jiang napsal(a):<br>
> In the section 3.6. Java EE components of CDI 1.2 specification, it has<br>
> the following statement:<br>
><br>
> /It is safe to annotate Java EE components with //@Vetoed //to prevent<br>
> them being considered beans./<br>
><br>
> According to my understanding, the JavaEE component classes with @Vetoed<br>
> should still support injections and *ProcessInjectionTarget*events<br>
> should still be fired.<br>
><br>
> In the 12.4.2, it states:<br>
> /If the filter is active, and: .... then we say that the type is<br>
> excluded from discovery./<br>
><br>
> Does this mean if a JavaEE component class is excluded from the scan in<br>
> the beans.xml, its CDI involvement should be ignored (@Inject would be<br>
> ignored etc)?<br>
<br>
I don't think so. I believe the intent of "3.6. Java EE components" is<br>
to clarify that if a component class (e.g. a servlet class) is also<br>
recognized as a managed bean [1] there will be two different<br>
"components" in your applicaion, each managed by a different Java EE<br>
technology - e.g. a servlet managed by the servlet container and a CDI<br>
bean with servlet class in its set of bean types.<br>
<br>
The servlet has a different lifecycle, it's managed by a servlet<br>
container and as such must support injection (but cannot be injected,<br>
etc.).<br>
<br>
This might be confusing and therefore it's a good idea to veto the Java<br>
EE component classes -> there will be no CDI bean definitions based on<br>
the component classes.<br>
<br>
[1]<br>
<a href="http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#what_classes_are_beans" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#what_classes_are_beans</a><br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> Many thanks,<br>
> Emily<br>
> ===========================<br>
> Emily Jiang<br>
> WebSphere Application Server Liberty Profile development, CDI<br>
> Development Lead<br>
><br>
> MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN<br>
> Phone: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%291962%20816278" value="+441962816278">+44 (0)1962 816278</a> Internal: 246278<br>
><br>
> Email: <a href="mailto:emijiang@uk.ibm.com">emijiang@uk.ibm.com</a><br>
> Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB<br>
><br>
> Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number<br>
> 741598.<br>
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6<br>
3AU<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
><br>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the<br>
code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<br>
<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas<br>
provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
Martin Kouba<br>
Software Engineer<br>
Red Hat, Czech Republic<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cdi-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
<br>
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the<br>
code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<br>
<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas<br>
provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number<br>
741598.<br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150807/ddd1f56e/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150807/ddd1f56e/attachment.html</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cdi-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
<br>
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
<br>
End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 57, Issue 2<br>
**************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>