[webbeans-dev] Re: Removal of pluggability contracts

[Gavin King]

OK, but, arguably this change is actually a change to the lifecycle of
SFSBs as defined by the EJB spec, since the EJB spec defines no way to
remove EJBs without the invocation of a @Remove method. The mechanism
defined the the early and public drafts of 299 was layered over this
lifecycle, by saying that one of these @Remove methods was "special"
and was called by the container.

However, it's become increasingly clear that there's no really "clean"
way to do this - in many cases it's difficult to identify which of the
remove methods is the "special" one without requiring additional
metadat. And, worse, I think it's a corruption of the semantics of
@Remove methods, which were designed to be called by the client, not
by the container.

And I don't think it's unprecedented to say that the container can
destroy an SFSB without invocation of a @Remove method, since it
already does that sometimes, for example when the @StatefulTimeout
occurs.

So, I would like to add this additional means of destruction - but not
before discussing it with Ken.

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Michael Keith <MICHAEL.KEITH at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Gavin,
>
> Given that one of the primary characteristics of a context is its duration,
> which may not line up exactly with the life cycle of the component itself,
> one has to accept that there are going to need to be some extensions to the
> life cycle of the component.
>
> However, an extension to an existing life cycle is quite different from
> defining an additional life cycle, which implies an additional component.
> This is a somewhat separate discussion, though, that I won't get into now.
> but that I think needs to be on the table at some point.
>
> Anytime the life cycle of the context can make use of the existing life cycle
> of the component then it is definitely an improvement, so this proposed change
> is a good one, IMO.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gavin King [mailto:gavin at hibernate.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:17 PM
>> To: Java Community Process JSR #299 Expert List; Michael Keith; Jim
>> Knutson; WebBeans
>> Subject: Re: Removal of pluggability contracts
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Gavin King
>> <gavin at hibernate.org> wrote:
>>
>> > SFSBs with no web bean remove method
>> > ================================
>> > We have an open issue w.r.t destruction of SFSBs which have no web
>> > bean remove method. Now that the requirement for
>> pluggability is gone,
>> > I think we should simply say that in this case, the container must
>> > destroy the SFSB when its context ends *without* calling any remove
>> > method.
>> >
>> > I will go ahead and make that change unless there is someone who
>> > objects to this.
>>
>> Alternatively, we could actually go further than this and simply
>> eliminate the concept of the "Web Bean remove method" and the
>> @Destructor annotation. @Remove methods are really intended to be
>> called by clients, not by the container - and if you just want a
>> callback, we already have @PreDestroy. I'm not sure that @Destructor
>> is really adding any additional value.
>>
>> The more I think about this, the more I think this is the right way to
>> go (and it simplifies the spec).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>> http://hibernate.org
>> http://seamframework.org
>>
>



-- 
Gavin King
gavin.king at gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org