[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-348) Clarify which beans "have" bean defining annotations
by Pete Muir (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-348?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Pete Muir resolved CDI-348.
---------------------------
Resolution: Done
Ok, I added that the scope type must be declared on the bean class, which means the answers are no, no and no.
> Clarify which beans "have" bean defining annotations
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-348
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-348
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Beans
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> {quote}Any bean which has scope type is said to have a bean defining annotation.{quote}
> The spec makes this vague statement and provides two examples which only cover the two simplest cases. What remains unclear is:
> - if a bean class inherits a scope annotation definition from a superclass, should it be discovered in an implicit bean archive?
> - if a bean inherits a scope from a stereotype, should it be discovered in an implicit bean archive?
> - if a producer method / field has a scope annotation but the declaring bean is not a bean with bean defining annotation, whould the producer be discovered?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-345) Bean defining annotation (as currently specified) cannot be used for bean discovery
by Pete Muir (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-345?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Pete Muir resolved CDI-345.
---------------------------
Resolution: Done
I removed this requirement.
> Bean defining annotation (as currently specified) cannot be used for bean discovery
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-345
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-345
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Portable Extensions
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> {quote}Any scope type, which *has an associated context* (as defined in Chapter 6), is a bean defining annotation{quote}
> {quote}First the container must discover types. The container discovers:
> • each Java class, interface or enum deployed in an explicit bean archive, and
> • each Java class interface, or enum with a *bean defining annotation* in an implicit bean archive.
> {quote}
> The set of context cannot be enumerated until the AfterBeanDiscovery phase in which extensions register contexts. This creates a chicken-egg problem.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-357) @Stateless and @Singleton session beans are no longer passivation capable dependencies
by Pete Muir (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-357?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Pete Muir resolved CDI-357.
---------------------------
Resolution: Done
Yes, agreed, I was misreading the issue.
> @Stateless and @Singleton session beans are no longer passivation capable dependencies
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-357
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-357
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Beans
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> This is a regression since 1.0
> CDI 1.0:
> {quote}all session beans are passivation capable dependencies{quote}
> CDI 1.1:
> {quote}all passivation capable beans with scope @Dependent are passivation capable dependencies{quote}
> and
> {quote}As defined by the EJB specification, stateless and singleton session beans are not passivation capable{quote}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-319) Reword part of the @Vetoed section
by Pete Muir (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-319?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Pete Muir resolved CDI-319.
---------------------------
Resolution: Done
I have removed section 3.13 and merged the text into sections 3.1 and 3.2, as these sections correctly describe the section of @Vetoed.
> Reword part of the @Vetoed section
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-319
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-319
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> I think the current wording of 3.13 "Vetoing types" is misleading now. E.g. @Vetoed on annotation (qualifier, stereotype) has no effect. Also the spec wording should be synced with @Vetoed javadoc.
> To sum it up: @Vetoed affects classes, interfaces, enums.
> * class -> no container lifecycle event (PAT), no bean or observer methods defined by the class will be installed
> * interface, enum -> no container lifecycle event (PAT)
> I suggest something similar:
> {quote}
> Any Java class, interface, enum or package may be prevented from being considered by CDI by adding the @Vetoed annotation.
> In particular,
> * any beans or observer methods defined by a class annotated with @Vetoed will not be installed
> * no container lifecycle events are fired for classes, interfaces or enums annotated with @Vetoed
> * when @Vetoed placed on package, all classes, interfaces or enums in the package are prevented from being considered by CDI
> {quote}
> The rest is ok.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-344) bean-discovery-mode should be specified
by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-344?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Jozef Hartinger reopened CDI-344:
---------------------------------
{quote}A bean archive with no version has a bean discovery mode of all. A bean archive with version 1.1 (or later) has a bean discovery mode of annotated.{quote}
Although the intention is for these default values to be only applied unless the bean discovery mode is explicitly specified, it is not clear from the specification.
> bean-discovery-mode should be specified
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-344
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-344
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> It seems that the only complete source of information about the *bean-discovery-mode* attribute is the schema file. The specification should better explain the attribute, list and explain allowed values.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-357) @Stateless and @Singleton session beans are no longer passivation capable dependencies
by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-357?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-357:
-------------------------------------
Not all session beans are passivation capable *beans* but since access to them is proxied I cannot see a reason why stateless session beans and singletons could not be passivation capable *dependencies*. It's the same as with normal-scoped beans which are always *passivation capable dependencies* no matter if the bean is *passivation capable bean*
> @Stateless and @Singleton session beans are no longer passivation capable dependencies
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-357
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-357
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Beans
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> This is a regression since 1.0
> CDI 1.0:
> {quote}all session beans are passivation capable dependencies{quote}
> CDI 1.1:
> {quote}all passivation capable beans with scope @Dependent are passivation capable dependencies{quote}
> and
> {quote}As defined by the EJB specification, stateless and singleton session beans are not passivation capable{quote}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-129) Clarify behaviour of @ApplicationScoped in EARs
by Denis Forveille (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Denis Forveille commented on CDI-129:
-------------------------------------
+1 for @ApplicationScoped == "@EARScoped"
Q: If no common agreement arises, could this be configured via a property?
By default @ApplicationScoped == @EARScoped but you can configure it to be @WARScoped via a property?
> Clarify behaviour of @ApplicationScoped in EARs
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-129
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-129
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Contexts
> Affects Versions: 1.0
> Reporter: Mark Struberg
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Labels: application-scoped, visibility
> Fix For: TBD
>
>
> Since @ApplicationScoped currently is defined in 6.5.2 as to be 'like in the Servlet specification' this means that you will get a new instance for every WebApplication (WAR file).
> There is currently no specified CDI scope for providing a single shared instance for a whole EAR.
> We could (ab-)use @Singleton for that, but this is currently not well defined at all.
> Alternatively we could introduce an own new annotation like @EnterpriseScoped or likes.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 9 months