<div dir="ltr">Martin,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:06 AM Martin Kouba <<a href="mailto:mkouba@redhat.com">mkouba@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Dne 16.5.2016 v 13:34 John D. Ament napsal(a):<br>
><br>
> Martin,<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:54 AM Martin Kouba <<a href="mailto:mkouba@redhat.com" target="_blank">mkouba@redhat.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mkouba@redhat.com" target="_blank">mkouba@redhat.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dne 15.5.2016 v 17:14 John D. Ament napsal(a):<br>
> > Romain,<br>
> ><br>
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM Romain Manni-Bucau<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com" target="_blank">rmannibucau@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com" target="_blank">rmannibucau@gmail.com</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com" target="_blank">rmannibucau@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com" target="_blank">rmannibucau@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Jon<br>
> ><br>
> > Le 15 mai 2016 16:15, "John D. Ament" <<a href="mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com" target="_blank">john.d.ament@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com" target="_blank">john.d.ament@gmail.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com" target="_blank">john.d.ament@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com" target="_blank">john.d.ament@gmail.com</a>>>> a écrit :<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Hey guys<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Seems like we have some issues in JIRA all focused on managing<br>
> > the lifecycle of Dependent scoped beans. It also seems like<br>
> we have<br>
> > many differing opinions about how to manage them.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > - Martin raised a PR to add a release() method to Instance to<br>
> > help destroy a dependent bean<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/286" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/286</a><br>
> > > - I raised a PR <a href="https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/289" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/289</a> to<br>
> > update the spec to clarify how to manage a dependent scoped bean.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Right now, it seems that the big disagreement is whether<br>
> > Instance.destroy() can destroy objects not created by it (the<br>
> case<br>
> > being around the CDI utility class, being an impl of<br>
> Instance). I'm<br>
> > currently heavily against Martin's proposed changes, but want<br>
> to get<br>
> > input from others on the group to understand their perspective.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > - Does the spec require destroy() to be called only on<br>
> instances<br>
> > that it created? When I read 5.6.1 the only requirement I see is<br>
> > that it has to be a dependent scoped bean. Note when I ask<br>
> this I'm<br>
> > asking from the spec perspective, its a different problem if<br>
> there's<br>
> > some issues with implementations following suite (I would imagine<br>
> > there needs to be some shared global registry of dependent scoped<br>
> > beans for this to work).<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > Sound the only clean impl. Any other is not symmetric and<br>
> > potentially lead to "oops this time it didnt work". I also not<br>
> > seeing any use case limitation with that so think it is the same<br>
> > solution<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I'm not sure I follow or if this isn't an answer to "Does the spec<br>
> > require destroy() to be called only on instances that it created?" ?<br>
> ><br>
> > Anyways I did look a bit closer and it seems that Martin's<br>
> statement is<br>
> > consistent with how OWB works,<br>
> ><br>
> <a href="https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/trunk/webbeans-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/webbeans/inject/instance/InstanceImpl.java#L293" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/trunk/webbeans-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/webbeans/inject/instance/InstanceImpl.java#L293</a><br>
> so<br>
> > I wonder if there's a part of the spec I'm missing, or if there<br>
> was some<br>
> > offline agreement on how to understand it.<br>
><br>
> John, I believe Instance CANNOT be used to destroy a dependent bean<br>
> instance it didn't created, because a dependent bean instance doesn't<br>
> know the dependent objects it depends on - that's what CreationalContext<br>
> is for.<br>
><br>
><br>
> This is the area I'm looking for clarification around. Where in the<br>
> spec is this mandated?<br>
<br>
I think it's implied. When you look at "6.1.1. The CreationalContext<br>
interface", there is:<br>
<br>
"Contextual.create() should use the given CreationalContext when<br>
obtaining contextual references to inject, as defined in Contextual<br>
reference for a bean, in order to ensure that any dependent objects are<br>
associated with the contextual instance that is being created."<br>
<br>
and also:<br>
<br>
"Contextual.destroy() should call release() to allow the container to<br>
destroy dependent objects of the contextual instance."<br>
<br>
and "6.2. The Context interface":<br>
<br>
"The context object must pass the same instance of CreationalContext to<br>
Contextual.destroy() that it passed to Contextual.create() when it<br>
created the instance."<br>
<br>
And for dependent beans there is no real context which could hold a<br>
reference to a CreationalContext. Each Instance<T> has its own<br>
CreationalContext which only tracks the dependent instances produced by<br>
a given Instance. Instance<T> does not know anything about<br>
CreationalContexts of other dependent instances...<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I think I'm starting to see your point. However, if its mandated that Instance uses a creational context to create a bean, we should call that out. Right now the text says that it will retrieve a bean, but realistically for dependent it's creating a bean.</div><div><br></div><div>Maybe something along the lines of </div><div><br></div><div>"In the case of the target bean being a dependent scoped bean, the instance object used to retrieve that bean will retain a reference to the creational context used to create that bean. That creational context will be used to destroy the bean when calling destroy()"</div><div><br></div><div>I would still like us to explore ways to do this without requiring the original instance, for the case of CDI.current() usage.</div><div><br></div><div>John</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
><br>
> So if you pass any dependent instance to Instance.destroy() there is no<br>
> CreationalContext apart from the one Instance<> has. In other words you<br>
> wouldn't be able to destroy the @Dependent dependencies of a @Dependent<br>
> bean instane. Does it make sense?<br>
><br>
> See also <a href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-519" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-519</a> (cdi-spec/cdi/pull/278<br>
> is already merged).<br>
><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > John<br>
> ><br>
> > > - Do we want two methods that effectively do the same<br>
> thing? I<br>
> > don't see a strong difference between the two.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On the flipside, my change is more a spec clarification. I'm<br>
> > thinking more now that it belongs as a reword of 5.6.1 to clarify<br>
> > how to use destroy() on dependent beans, rather than where I put<br>
> > it. I think realistically we have all of the tools needed to<br>
> manage<br>
> > the lifecycle of these classes, just need to clarify them for<br>
> people<br>
> > to use.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > John<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> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<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>
> > > <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<br>
> > licenses 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>
> > 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>><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<br>
> licenses 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>
> Martin Kouba<br>
> Software Engineer<br>
> Red Hat, Czech Republic<br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
Martin Kouba<br>
Software Engineer<br>
Red Hat, Czech Republic<br>
</blockquote></div></div>