March 2015 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-513) Clarify whether passivating pseudo-scopes are valid

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-513?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Mark Struberg commented on CDI-513: ----------------------------------- {quote} Passivating scopes must be explicitly declared @NormalScope(passivating=true). {quote} This would effectively render the whole addScope Extension method useless... How would you add a scope for the JSF @ViewScoped annotation in that case? (This annotation is neither @NormalScoped nor @Scope). I suggest we remove this whole sentence as it contradicts other spec parts. > Clarify whether passivating pseudo-scopes are valid > --------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-513 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-513 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 1.2.Final > Reporter: Mark Struberg > > On behalf of Jozef I copied this to a CDI ticket... See CDITCK-466 > I personally think it is clear as there is no single word which forbids this and there is a very vocal description about the single flags. > ----- > AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine. > There is nothing in the spec which says that a non-normalscope cannot be passivating. > The practical use case for this is e.g. when bridging over to Spring. Those beans might need to get checked for Serializable BUT spring brings it's own proxies. So we do not need to wrap it into just another normalscoping proxy. > Actually the test should come in 2 flavours: > 1.) RomanEmpire being Serializable -> all fine must work > 2.) RomainEmpire not Serializable -> DefinitionException -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

DefinitionException vs DeploymentException

by Mark Struberg

Hi! I think we currently fail to have a clean notion about what should be a DefinitionException and what should be a DeploymentException. It seems like most of the TCK in this regard is just modelling Weld behaviour and follows no whatever logic. E.,g. we have 2 tests doing almost the same: org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.bbd.broken.passivatingScope.AddingPassivatingScopeTest Which according to the TCK should throw a DefinitionException and org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.context.passivating.broken.NonPassivationManagedBeanHasPassivatingScopeTest which according to the TCK should throw a DeploymentException But BOTH actually do the same: they test if some managed bean implements Serializable. And both do this during bootstrap. Am I blind and don’t see the difference, or is all this just madly broken? LieGrue, strub

9 years, 9 months

3
3
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-513) Clarify whether passivating pseudo-scopes are valid

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-513?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Jozef Hartinger updated CDI-513: -------------------------------- Summary: Clarify whether passivating pseudo-scopes are valid (was: AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine) > Clarify whether passivating pseudo-scopes are valid > --------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-513 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-513 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 1.2.Final > Reporter: Mark Struberg > > On behalf of Jozef I copied this to a CDI ticket... See CDITCK-466 > I personally think it is clear as there is no single word which forbids this and there is a very vocal description about the single flags. > ----- > AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine. > There is nothing in the spec which says that a non-normalscope cannot be passivating. > The practical use case for this is e.g. when bridging over to Spring. Those beans might need to get checked for Serializable BUT spring brings it's own proxies. So we do not need to wrap it into just another normalscoping proxy. > Actually the test should come in 2 flavours: > 1.) RomanEmpire being Serializable -> all fine must work > 2.) RomainEmpire not Serializable -> DefinitionException -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-513) AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-513?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-513: ------------------------------------- Dear EG, please clarify whether the notion of a passivating pseudo-scope is valid in CDI. The following indirect evidence seems to contradict this: 1) There is no way to mark a pseudo-scope as passivating using annotations. Using BeforeBeanDiscovery.addScope(annotation, false, true) therefore looks like a possible hack (misuse of lenient signature) instead of an intended use case. 2) The author of the BeforeBeanDiscovery API himself implemented a check which treats passivating pseudo-scopes as invalid. See https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-307 for details. The same author implemented the TCK test mentioned in https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-466 3) 6.6.4 says: {quote} Passivating scopes must be explicitly declared @NormalScope(passivating=true). {quote} On the other hand, if passivating pseudoscopes were allowed it should not conflict with anything and this feature may be useful for certain use cases. > AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-513 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-513 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 1.2.Final > Reporter: Mark Struberg > > On behalf of Jozef I copied this to a CDI ticket... See CDITCK-466 > I personally think it is clear as there is no single word which forbids this and there is a very vocal description about the single flags. > ----- > AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine. > There is nothing in the spec which says that a non-normalscope cannot be passivating. > The practical use case for this is e.g. when bridging over to Spring. Those beans might need to get checked for Serializable BUT spring brings it's own proxies. So we do not need to wrap it into just another normalscoping proxy. > Actually the test should come in 2 flavours: > 1.) RomanEmpire being Serializable -> all fine must work > 2.) RomainEmpire not Serializable -> DefinitionException -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-513) AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

Mark Struberg created CDI-513: --------------------------------- Summary: AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine Key: CDI-513 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-513 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Affects Versions: 1.2.Final Reporter: Mark Struberg On behalf of Jozef I copied this to a CDI ticket... See CDITCK-466 I personally think it is clear as there is no single word which forbids this and there is a very vocal description about the single flags. ----- AddingPassivatingScopeTest is illegal as addScope for passivating non-normalscopes is perfectly fine. There is nothing in the spec which says that a non-normalscope cannot be passivating. The practical use case for this is e.g. when bridging over to Spring. Those beans might need to get checked for Serializable BUT spring brings it's own proxies. So we do not need to wrap it into just another normalscoping proxy. Actually the test should come in 2 flavours: 1.) RomanEmpire being Serializable -> all fine must work 2.) RomainEmpire not Serializable -> DefinitionException -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-512) Initialization parameter to specify loaded Extensions

by John Ament (JIRA)

John Ament created CDI-512: ------------------------------ Summary: Initialization parameter to specify loaded Extensions Key: CDI-512 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-512 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Java SE Integration Reporter: John Ament Assignee: John Ament As a tie in for CDI-511, define a initialization parameter that can specify the list of extensions to be enabled. The parameter should accept any Collection, however if a duplicate entry is found it is ignored. The collection should support either Classes or Strings representing the FQCN of the extension itself, or the extension instance. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-511) Java SE bootstrap parameter to disable extension loading

by John Ament (JIRA)

John Ament created CDI-511: ------------------------------ Summary: Java SE bootstrap parameter to disable extension loading Key: CDI-511 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-511 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Java SE Integration Reporter: John Ament Assignee: John Ament We should define a standard parameter when initializing a CDIContainer that allows a user to not load any portable extensions defined in META-INF/services/javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-510) Update JCP license

by John Ament (JIRA)

John Ament created CDI-510: ------------------------------ Summary: Update JCP license Key: CDI-510 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-510 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Bug Reporter: John Ament Update the JCP license file to reflect CDI 2.0, JSR 365 (instead of JSR 346) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-509) Upgrade to latest felix plugin in API JAR

by John Ament (JIRA)

John Ament created CDI-509: ------------------------------ Summary: Upgrade to latest felix plugin in API JAR Key: CDI-509 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-509 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Reporter: John Ament Assignee: John Ament Upgrade to the latest felix plugin in the API JAR to allow the API to include lambdas (version 2.5.3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

Upgrading the Felix plugin

by John D. Ament

All, I found that the current version of the felix plugin used in the CDI project doesn't support lambdas. I'm planning to upgrade it to the latest, and wanted to confirm This section of the pom should now read 2.0 right? not 1.1? javax.decorator;version=1.1, javax.enterprise.*;version=1.1, John

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev March 2015