January 2016 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Romain Manni-Bucau (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDI-579: ---------------------------------------- Agree but strongly think it is not used at all cause of the user experience it provides and the easiest way to fix this issue which is to go back on beans.xml structure - alternative is to add code to the extension which is not a real gain for users. > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Mark Struberg commented on CDI-579: ----------------------------------- Emily not sure if it is really a problem in real life. The only situation I can come up is if someone has an @ApplicationScoped bean or similar which is *not* getting used right now but has a deployment problem in it. So theoretically possible, but still would be really weird. > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Emily Jiang (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Emily Jiang commented on CDI-579: --------------------------------- well. An application may not starte if suddenly new beans are discovered by removing this sentence (AmbiguousResolutionException might be one of the causes) > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Romain Manni-Bucau (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDI-579: ---------------------------------------- [~emilyj] supposing it is used but if you hit it you add a beans.xml so this "feature" is not that used IMO so it is ok to change it now > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Emily Jiang (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Emily Jiang commented on CDI-579: --------------------------------- If we fix it, there is still chance to break the existing customers. Introducing a system property is an option if we decide to fix it. > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Romain Manni-Bucau (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Romain Manni-Bucau edited comment on CDI-579 at 1/25/16 2:50 AM: ----------------------------------------------------------------- We made TomEE supporting it but this is very unatural and error prone for users (you dev without a beans.xml then you add an extension to do X and finally nothing work anymore). I know it has been added for backward compatibility but not sure it is that relevant. Since it is not that used I think it is still time to correct it in the spec and TCKs. was (Author: rmannibucau): I nkow we made TomEE supporting it but this is very unatural and error prone for users (you dev without a beans.xml then you add an extension to do X and finally nothing work anymore). I know it has been added for backward compatibility but not sure it is that relevant. Since it is not that used I think it is still time to correct it in the spec and TCKs. > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Romain Manni-Bucau (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDI-579: ---------------------------------------- I nkow we made TomEE supporting it but this is very unatural and error prone for users (you dev without a beans.xml then you add an extension to do X and finally nothing work anymore). I know it has been added for backward compatibility but not sure it is that relevant. Since it is not that used I think it is still time to correct it in the spec and TCKs. > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba edited comment on CDI-579 at 1/25/16 2:48 AM: ----------------------------------------------------------- Well, Weld must follow the spec (i.e. it's not recognized as a bean archive), otherwise it wouldn't pass the relevant TCK test: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... [Weld SE|http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/latest/en-US/html/environments.ht...] and [Weld Servlet|http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/latest/en-US/html/environmen...] have a limited implicit bean archive support - bean archives without beans.xml descriptor are completely ignored. But I agree it sounds weird. was (Author: mkouba): Weld must follow the spec (i.e. it's not recognized as a bean archive), otherwise it wouldn't pass the relevant TCK test: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... [Weld SE|http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/latest/en-US/html/environments.ht...] and [Weld Servlet|http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/latest/en-US/html/environmen...] have a limited implicit bean archive support - bean archives without beans.xml descriptor are completely ignored. > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Tomas Remes commented on CDI-579: --------------------------------- I have to agree that's not really straightforward but it's the way it is... There is TCK test for this {{org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.deployment.discovery.BeanDiscoveryTest#testNotBeanArchiveExtension}}. Extension is called, but beans are not discovered. > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba commented on CDI-579: ---------------------------------- Weld must follow the spec (i.e. it's not recognized as a bean archive), otherwise it wouldn't pass the relevant TCK test: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... [Weld SE|http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/latest/en-US/html/environments.ht...] and [Weld Servlet|http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/latest/en-US/html/environmen...] have a limited implicit bean archive support - bean archives without beans.xml descriptor are completely ignored. > Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'? > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-579 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Minor > > The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. > This has been in since CDI-1.1 > {code} > An archive which: > • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or, > • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive. > is not a bean archive. > {code} > That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording? > Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below. > I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

8 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 2016