<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hi Martin,<br></div>Although the spec does not enforce that @Specialized must be used in conjunction with @Alternative , I would like to unify the understanding of what the spec behavior of @Specialized on an disabled bean is. <br><br></div>Thanks<br></div>Emily<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Martin Kouba <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mkouba@redhat.com" target="_blank">mkouba@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Emily,<br>
<br>
the problem is Specialization is not defined per bean archive but per application. A bean is either specialized or not. Note that specialization is not tied to alternatives.<br>
<br>
WRT your use-case: the specializing bean should be enabled globally or in each bean archive which is using the specialized bean.<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
Dne 23.11.2015 v 10:54 Emily Jiang napsal(a):<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
Thank you Tom and Matej for your response!<br>
The alternative was enabled in the archive beans-xml-modified.jar, but<br>
it is not enabled in the archive beans-xml-modified2.jar. The issue is<br>
not with alternative but with Specialized.<br>
<br>
At the moment, Weld specialized is effective even if itself is not<br>
enabled, which is not desirable because it disables other bean but<br>
itself is not enabled. As a consequence, this causes deployment error.<br>
<br>
The CDI 1.2 section 4.3 spec says:<br>
When an enabled bean, as defined in Section 5.1.2, “Enabled and disabled<br>
beans”, specializes<br>
a second bean, we can be certain that the second bean is never<br>
instantiated or called by the<br>
container. Even if the second bean defines a producer or observer<br>
method, the method will never<br>
be called.<br>
<br>
It is true the above sentence comments about an enabled bean. It hits an<br>
disabled bean should not specialize a second bean. If you guys think it<br>
is unclear, can we update the spec to clarify this scenario?<br>
<br>
By the way, OWB and Weld behave differently (Weld thinks a disabled bean<br>
still specializes a second bean while OWB thinks a disabled bean does<br>
NOT specialize a second bean). This is something we can leave to<br>
implementation. We should spec it!<br>
<br>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Matej Novotny <<a href="mailto:manovotn@redhat.com" target="_blank">manovotn@redhat.com</a><br></span><span class="">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:manovotn@redhat.com" target="_blank">manovotn@redhat.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hello Emily<br>
<br>
I agree with Tom. In your case, specialized producer is enabled (via<br>
beans.xml) although only per bean archive.<br>
<br>
<br>
And about this:<br>
>>From Weld's perspective, any bean annotated with @Specialized disables a second bean regardless whether itself is active or not.<br>
<br>
It is true, however the spec doesn't define how does a @Specialized<br>
bean behave when it is disabled (or at least I haven't found that bit).<br>
So this leaves it up to implementation and I can't really see a<br>
problem with it. Why would you create a @Specialized bean and<br>
disable it afterwards (with no other @Specialized and/or<br>
@Alternative active)?<br>
<br>
<br>
Matej<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br></span><span class="">
From: "Tomas Remes" <<a href="mailto:tremes@redhat.com" target="_blank">tremes@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tremes@redhat.com" target="_blank">tremes@redhat.com</a>>><br>
To: "Emily Jiang" <<a href="mailto:emijiang6@googlemail.com" target="_blank">emijiang6@googlemail.com</a><br></span><span class="">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:emijiang6@googlemail.com" target="_blank">emijiang6@googlemail.com</a>>><br>
Cc: "cdi-dev" <<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>>><br>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 8:33:44 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification on 4.3 Specialization<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Emily,<br>
<br>
I am not sure I follow. What is disabled?<br>
AlternativeCounterProducerModified? I can see<br>
AlternativeCounterProducerModified is enabled in beans.xml of the<br>
given bean archive and it means it is selected alternative only per<br>
the bean archive. So I can't see any problem (or maybe I don't fully<br>
understand).<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Emily Jiang" <<a href="mailto:emijiang6@googlemail.com" target="_blank">emijiang6@googlemail.com</a><br></span><span class="">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:emijiang6@googlemail.com" target="_blank">emijiang6@googlemail.com</a>>><br>
To: "cdi-dev" <<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>>><br>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:42:29 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification on 4.3 Specialization<br>
<br>
any thoughts?<br>
<br>
Should a bean with @Specialize disable a bean even if it is disabled<br>
itself?<br>
<br>
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Emily Jiang <<br></span><div><div class="h5">
<a href="mailto:emijiang6@googlemail.com" target="_blank">emijiang6@googlemail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:emijiang6@googlemail.com" target="_blank">emijiang6@googlemail.com</a>> > wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have an application containing two wars.<br>
<br>
testDiffBDA.war<br>
testDiffBDA.war/WEB-INF/classes/test/diff/web/FrontEndServlet.class<br>
<br>
@Inject CounterProducerConsumerModified2 bean;<br>
<br>
<br>
beans-xml-modified2.jar<br>
containing one bean and an empty-ish beans.xml :<br>
@Inject@CounterModifiedQualifier String modifiedProducer;<br>
<br>
beans-xml-modified.jar.jar<br>
CounterModifiedQualifier (the interface)<br>
CounterProducerModified (the bean implementing that interface)<br>
AlternativeCounterProducerModified (an alternative specialized bean)<br>
beans.xml<br>
<alternatives><br>
<class>com.ibm.jcdi.test.beansxml.AlternativeCounterProducerModified</class><br>
</alternatives><br>
<br>
My application failed deployment with the error on Weld but worked<br>
on OpenWebBeans<br>
<br>
[ERROR ] CWWKZ0004E: An exception occurred while starting the<br>
application testDiffBDA. The exception message was:<br>
com.ibm.ws.container.service.state.StateChangeException:<br>
org.jboss.weld.exceptions.DeploymentException: WELD-001408:<br>
Unsatisfied dependencies for type String with qualifiers<br>
@CounterModifiedQualifier<br>
at injection point [BackedAnnotatedField] @Inject<br>
@CounterModifiedQualifier<br>
com.ibm.jcdi.test.beansxml.CounterProducerConsumerModified2.modifiedProducer<br>
at<br>
com.ibm.jcdi.test.beansxml.CounterProducerConsumerModified2.modifiedProducer(CounterProducerConsumerModified2.java:0)<br>
--<br>
<br>
<br>
After further investigation and talking to Martin from Weld, the<br>
error was caused due to the fact of<br>
AlternativeCounterProducerModified disabling the<br>
CounterProducerModified bean but itself is not enabled in the jar of<br>
beans-xml-modified2.jar. Therefore, no producer is active to produce<br>
a bean with the qualifier CounterModifiedQualifier.<br>
<br>
>From Weld's perspective, any bean annotated with @Specialized<br>
disables a second bean regardless whether itself is active or not.<br>
<br>
My understanding is that the specialized should only take effect if<br>
itself is enabled. Otherwise, we run into the situation of where the<br>
specialized bean is not enabled but it disabled another bean. To me,<br>
it is wrong.<br>
<br>
<br>
I also checked the spec:<br>
@Alternative @Specializes<br>
public class MockAsynchronousService extends AsynchronousService {<br>
...<br>
}<br>
When an enabled bean, as defined in Section 5.1.2, “Enabled and<br>
disabled beans”, specializes<br>
a second bean, we can be certain that the second bean is never<br>
instantiated or called by the<br>
container. Even if the second bean defines a producer or observer<br>
method, the method will never<br>
be called.<br>
<br>
The spec says only an enabled bean can specialize a second bean. I<br>
would like to know what other people think.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Emily<br>
=================<br>
Emily Jiang<br></div></div>
<a href="mailto:ejiang@apache.org" target="_blank">ejiang@apache.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ejiang@apache.org" target="_blank">ejiang@apache.org</a>><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Thanks<br>
Emily<br>
=================<br>
Emily Jiang<br></span>
<a href="mailto:ejiang@apache.org" target="_blank">ejiang@apache.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ejiang@apache.org" target="_blank">ejiang@apache.org</a>><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cdi-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>><span class=""><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<br>
the 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<br>
ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and<br>
other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Tomas Remes<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cdi-dev mailing list<br></span>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>><span class=""><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<br>
the 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<br>
ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and<br>
other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Thanks<br>
Emily<br>
=================<br>
Emily Jiang<br>
</span><a href="mailto:ejiang@apache.org" target="_blank">ejiang@apache.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ejiang@apache.org" target="_blank">ejiang@apache.org</a>><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cdi-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">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>
</span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
Martin Kouba<br>
Software Engineer<br>
Red Hat, Czech Republic<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Thanks<br>Emily<br>=================<br>Emily Jiang<br><a href="mailto:ejiang@apache.org" target="_blank">ejiang@apache.org</a><br></div>
</div>