January 2014 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-398) Clarify that an array with a variable component type or parameterized component type containing wildcards is not a valid bean type

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-398?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-398: ------------------------------------- The CDI_tck_chge flag should be added - tests for this assertion will need to be added to the TCK. > Clarify that an array with a variable component type or parameterized component type containing wildcards is not a valid bean type > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-398 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-398 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Beans > Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD > Reporter: Marko Lukša > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, Ready_to_fix > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > Section 2.2.1 says: > {quote} > Almost any Java type may be a bean type of a bean: > • A bean type may be an array type. > {quote} > and: > {quote} > A type variable is not a legal bean type. A parameterized type that contains a wildcard type parameter is not a legal bean type. > {quote} > This should be clarified that array types that have a type variable or a parameterized type that contains a wildcard type parameter as the array's component type are also not legal bean types. > Also, all other sections that mention type variables/wildcards should also be reviewed and, if necessary, updated to also specifically mention array types with these kinds of component types. -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

yesterday meeting

by Antoine Sabot-Durand

Hi all, For those who weren’t at the meeting yesterday. You’’l find the transcript here [1] and a sumup of different topic here : [2]. My proposed list of issue ready to be assigned is here [3]. You'll have until tomorrow 5:00pm GMT to send me objections. In the meantime you can start choosing tasks you’d like to fulfill and ask or assignment on the ML. I’ll be reachable on IRC or here if you have questions. Antoine [1] http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freenode.org/jsr346/2014/jsr346.... [2] http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freenode.org/jsr346/2014/jsr346....

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-220) behaviour of CDI bean @Specializes session bean is undefined

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-220: ------------------------------------- Labels: CDI_spec_chge (was: ) > behaviour of CDI bean @Specializes session bean is undefined > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: CDI-220 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-220 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Java EE integration > Affects Versions: 1.0, 1.1.EDR > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Labels: CDI_spec_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The current spec doesn't define what should happen if a CDI bean @Specializes a session bean, e.g. > @Stateless > public class Horse {..} > @ApplicationScoped @Specializes > public class Trakehner extends Horse {..} > Section 3.2.4 explicitely forbids the other way around. I think we should also treat the above case as error. > Otherwise we would end up getting different results whether we use @Inject or @EJB to inject a Horse. -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-220) behaviour of CDI bean @Specializes session bean is undefined

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-220: ------------------------------------------ This should be clarified with resolution of CD-280. Regarding Specialization how does this code behave today in Weld and OWB. I hope it's not accepted > behaviour of CDI bean @Specializes session bean is undefined > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: CDI-220 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-220 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Java EE integration > Affects Versions: 1.0, 1.1.EDR > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The current spec doesn't define what should happen if a CDI bean @Specializes a session bean, e.g. > @Stateless > public class Horse {..} > @ApplicationScoped @Specializes > public class Trakehner extends Horse {..} > Section 3.2.4 explicitely forbids the other way around. I think we should also treat the above case as error. > Otherwise we would end up getting different results whether we use @Inject or @EJB to inject a Horse. -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-280) clarify usage of 'bean' term usage in the spec

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-280: ------------------------------------------ Don't forget references to EJB Bean which should be indicated as Session Bean > clarify usage of 'bean' term usage in the spec > ---------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-280 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Labels: CDI_spec_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > We should go to the spec and look up all 'bean' words as they are 5 different meaning the word 'bean' is used for > * The Bean<T> extends Contextual<T>. Should be referred as 'Bean' or 'CDI Bean' > * The class which gets scanned. Should be referred as 'Bean Class' to > * The instance stored in the context. Should be referred to as 'Contextual Instance' > * The proxy for a Contextual Instance should be referred to as 'Contextual Reference' > * The type of an injection point should be referred to as 'InjectionPoint Type' -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-280) clarify usage of 'bean' term usage in the spec

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-280: ------------------------------------- Labels: CDI_spec_chge (was: ) > clarify usage of 'bean' term usage in the spec > ---------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-280 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Labels: CDI_spec_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > We should go to the spec and look up all 'bean' words as they are 5 different meaning the word 'bean' is used for > * The Bean<T> extends Contextual<T>. Should be referred as 'Bean' or 'CDI Bean' > * The class which gets scanned. Should be referred as 'Bean Class' to > * The instance stored in the context. Should be referred to as 'Contextual Instance' > * The proxy for a Contextual Instance should be referred to as 'Contextual Reference' > * The type of an injection point should be referred to as 'InjectionPoint Type' -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-318) @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-318: ------------------------------------------ Javadoc in API should be corrected to day the same than spec > @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-318 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Priority: Minor > Labels: CDI_api_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > Is this intentional? Supertypes also include interfaces which are not very useful here as beans may inherit type-level metadata and members from superclasses only. > Is there any special use-case for this? -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-318) @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-318: ------------------------------------- Labels: CDI_api_chge Ready_to_fix (was: CDI_api_chge) > @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-318 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Priority: Minor > Labels: CDI_api_chge, Ready_to_fix > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > Is this intentional? Supertypes also include interfaces which are not very useful here as beans may inherit type-level metadata and members from superclasses only. > Is there any special use-case for this? -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-318) @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-318: ------------------------------------- Labels: CDI_api_chge (was: ) > @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-318 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Priority: Minor > Labels: CDI_api_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > Is this intentional? Supertypes also include interfaces which are not very useful here as beans may inherit type-level metadata and members from superclasses only. > Is there any special use-case for this? -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-320) Clarify whether ProcessAnnotatedType should be fired for annotations

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-320: ------------------------------------------ We have to change the wording to avoid this confusion. > Clarify whether ProcessAnnotatedType should be fired for annotations > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-320 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-320 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Portable Extensions > Reporter: Ron Šmeral > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, Ready_to_fix > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > It should be stated clearly whether {{ProcessAnnotatedType}} should be fired for annotations. > Currently, *11.5.6 ProcessAnnotatedType event* says: > {quote} > The container must fire an event, before it processes a type, for each: > * Java class, interface or enum in a bean archive, > {quote} > The word "annotation" has been introduced into the above line and later reverted. > {quote} > * Annotated type added by {{BeforeBeanDiscovery.addAnnotatedType()}}, > {quote} > The wording used here, however, doesn't exclude the option of the annotated type being an Annotation. -- 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

10 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev January 2014