[weld-dev] [jsr-299-eg] Updated spec with @BeanTypes and clarification of @New

[Roberto Chinnici]

Gavin King wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Roberto Chinnici
> <Roberto.Chinnici at sun.com> wrote:
>   
>> Gavin King wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Roberto Chinnici
>> <Roberto.Chinnici at sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gavin King wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Roberto Chinnici
>> <Roberto.Chinnici at sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, but the issue is that the class was not already a bean, because it was
>> placed (deliberately, I assume) in an archive that is not a bean deployment
>> archive.
>>
>>
>> It is certainly NOT true that beans placed in archives that are not
>> "bean deployment archives" are not beans. A class annotated
>> @ManagedBean or @Stateless is a bean whether or not its archive has a
>> beans.xml file.
>>
>>
>> Of course. But neither applied to the case being discussed.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, this "clarification" to the behavior of @New
>> certainly does apply to both these cases.
>>
>>
>> The case being discussed was DriversSeat and SpareTire from the 330 TCK,
>> i.e. the latest version of the Producers class you circulated.
>>     
>
> OK, so now stick @Stateful on those classes. Would you still argue
> that they are not beans? I don't think you would :-)
>   

Of course not.

>> The "inconsistencies" are between the various specs that together define
>> requirements
>> for an EE container.
>>     
>
> >From what you've told me, there is one new sentence in the EE spec
> that is inconsistent with all the other specs :-)
>
> i.e. The sentence that says you can't use 330 annotations on a class
> that is not in a 299 bean deployment archive.
>   

OK, so you think I should be able to use @Inject everywhere basically, 
even in modules
which are not bean deployment archives. It seems OK, but it's not what 
the proposal
I sent to the platform EG back in July said.

>> Note that that language also means that I can't have a plain war with
>> servlets that use JSR-330 annotations, or a plain EJB jar with EJB
>> beans that use JSR-330 annotations.
>>
>> What is a "plain war"?
>>     
>
> A war that is not a bean deployment archive. A war with no beans.xml file.
>
> Do you really, really want to say that you can't use JSR-330
> annotations in the servlets deployed in such a war? That was *never*
> what 299 envisaged.
>   

Yep, we have a disconnect.

>> Maybe you should read that spec section, just to make sure it says what you
>> think it says.
>>     
>
> I will take a look, but the sentence you just quoted to me looks
> completely wrong.
>
> Any servlet, EJB or managed bean should be allowed to use @Inject and
> @Resource. This functionality should not depend upon the presence of
> beans.xml.
>   

I understand. Let me think about the implications.

>> You are missing my point. Component classes that support injection are
>> listed
>> in the EE spec (Table EE.5-1). They are, and must be, discoverable by the
>> container at deployment time. Moreover, the container doesn't have to go out
>> of
>> its way to discover anything else. This is why it's important to decide what
>> classes
>> are managed beans.
>>
>> With that premise, "beans" that are not discovered are not managed beans.
>>     
>
> OK, well that's a different use of the word bean than in 299. In 299
> beans are beans, whether they are discovered or not. I propose that
> you use the phrase "discovered beans" for your concept.
>
> So, 299 provides 2 mechanisms for discovery of a bean:
>
> * scanning of classes in archives with beans.xml
> * scanning of injection points with @New
>   

The second one is more scanning than we had in mind.

>> OK, let me ask you a simpler question: if I have a web module, say, without
>> a beans.xml
>> descriptor, can I lookup a BeanManager in JNDI under java:comp/BeanManager?
>> Currently
>> the platform spec says you can't.
>>     
>
> That's a very good question, and one that the 299 spec does not address.
>
> And my answer is *definitely yes*, since you should be able to inject
> into "EE components supporting injection" that are deployed in that
> web module, using @Inject. So there's no reason why you should not
> also be  able to get them via the BeanManager API.
>   

Yes, that is consistent with your belief we should support @Inject 
everywhere.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/attachments/20091019/75a3e36d/attachment-0001.html