<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:24, Clint Popetz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cpopetz@gmail.com">cpopetz@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Adam Warski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:adam@warski.org" target="_blank">adam@warski.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello,<br>
<br>
have you considered adding a stateless scope to Weld?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I've definitely felt the paint of not having this, for all the reasons stated. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>I agree with both of you and have attempted to defend this position in the past. I thought using a dependent-scoped bean with Instance<T>#get() would be sufficient, but I didn't think about the passivation requirement. We need a truly stateless scope in CDI. I define it as a non-storing context. The reference is resolved each time the proxy dereferenced (method call).</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Dan</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div>Dan Allen</div>Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>