November 2016 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-541) Ordering of async observers (vs sync observers) is not specified

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-541?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Tomas Remes updated CDI-541: ---------------------------- Fix Version/s: 2.0 .Final (was: TBD) > Ordering of async observers (vs sync observers) is not specified > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-541 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-541 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Events > Affects Versions: 2.0-EDR1 > Reporter: Tomas Remes > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > I think this needs to be specified. E.g. what happens if I fire async event and have more matching sync and async observers? Are all sync observes called first in given order with no regard to async observers priority? > For example: > {{event.fireAsync(new Message());}} > {code} > public class First { > > void observeMessage(@Observes @Priority(2000) Message message){} > } > {code} > {code} > public class Second { > > void observeMessage(@ObservesAsync @Priority(2100) Message message){} > } > {code} > {code} > public class Third { > > void observeMessage(@Observes @Priority(2200) Message message){} > } > {code} > {code} > public class Fourth { > > void observeMessage(@ObservesAsync @Priority(2300) Message message){} > } > {code} > What will be the order in this case? First, Third, Second, Fourth? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

Clarify AnnotatedTypeConfigurator.remove(Annotation annotation)

by Martin Kouba

Hi all, while working on https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-646 I figured out that all "AnnotatedX.remove(Annotation annotation)" methods declare the following javadoc: "Remove annotations with (a) the same type and (b) the same annotation member value for each member which is not annotated {@link Nonbinding}. The container calls the {@link Object#equals(Object)} method of the annotation member value to compare values." I don't think this is correct. @Nonbinding is only used for interceptors bindings and qualifiers whereas the purpose of AnnotatedType SPI is more general. I believe those remove() methods should simply use java.lang.annotation.Annotation.equals(Object) to identify annotations to remove. What do you think? Thanks, Martin

8 years, 1 month

2
2
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-609) Clarify behaviour of ObserverMethodConfigurator<T> read

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Tomas Remes updated CDI-609: ---------------------------- Comment: was deleted (was: I think this could marked as resolved once https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/340 is merged.) > Clarify behaviour of ObserverMethodConfigurator<T> read > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-609 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-609 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 2.0-EDR2 > Reporter: Tomas Remes > > It's not clear what should happen in case if you are using ObserverMethodConfigurator and attempting to read from a method ({{Method}}, {{AnnotatedMethod}}) which doesn't have any parameter annotated @Observes. E.g something like this in ABD lifecycle event ("observesMelon" doesn't have any @Observes): > {code} > Method melonMethod = FruitObserver.class.getMethod("observesMelon", Melon.class); > abd.addObserverMethod().read(melonMethod) > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-604) javax.enterprise.inject.spi.builder package should be renamed

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-604?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Tomas Remes resolved CDI-604. ----------------------------- Resolution: Out of Date > javax.enterprise.inject.spi.builder package should be renamed > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-604 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-604 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Affects Versions: 2.0-EDR2 > Reporter: Tomas Remes > > Since there are no builders in this package we should rename this one. So far there were proposals like {{configurators}} and {{configuration}} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-609) Clarify behaviour of ObserverMethodConfigurator<T> read

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Tomas Remes commented on CDI-609: --------------------------------- I think this could marked as resolved once https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/340 is merged. > Clarify behaviour of ObserverMethodConfigurator<T> read > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-609 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-609 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 2.0-EDR2 > Reporter: Tomas Remes > > It's not clear what should happen in case if you are using ObserverMethodConfigurator and attempting to read from a method ({{Method}}, {{AnnotatedMethod}}) which doesn't have any parameter annotated @Observes. E.g something like this in ABD lifecycle event ("observesMelon" doesn't have any @Observes): > {code} > Method melonMethod = FruitObserver.class.getMethod("observesMelon", Melon.class); > abd.addObserverMethod().read(melonMethod) > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

Passed: cdi-spec/cdi#194 (revert-339-CDI-651 - 67885d9)

by Travis CI

Build Update for cdi-spec/cdi ------------------------------------- Build: #194 Status: Passed Duration: 3 minutes and 11 seconds Commit: 67885d9 (revert-339-CDI-651) Author: Antoine Sabot-Durand Message: Revert "CDI-651 Add convenient Instance.isResolvable()" View the changeset: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/commit/67885d9fd598 View the full build log and details: https://travis-ci.org/cdi-spec/cdi/builds/179382358 -- You can configure recipients for build notifications in your .travis.yml file. See https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/notifications

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-655) Allow CDIProvider to specify the priority

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-655?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba updated CDI-655: ----------------------------- Description: Right now, the CDI class takes the first provider whose {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.CDIProvider.getCDI()}} does not return null. It might be useful to allow the CDIProvider authors to specify a priority (either by @Priority or by Prioritized) and sort the discovered providers so that those with higher priority are taken first. (was: Right now, the CDI class takes the first provider whose {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.CDIProvider.getCDI()}} does not return null. It might be useful to allow the CDIProvider authors to specify a priority (either by @Priority or by Prioritized) and sort the implementations so that providers with higher priority are taken first.) > Allow CDIProvider to specify the priority > ------------------------------------------ > > Key: CDI-655 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-655 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: Martin Kouba > > Right now, the CDI class takes the first provider whose {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.CDIProvider.getCDI()}} does not return null. It might be useful to allow the CDIProvider authors to specify a priority (either by @Priority or by Prioritized) and sort the discovered providers so that those with higher priority are taken first. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-655) Allow CDIProvider to specify the priority

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

Martin Kouba created CDI-655: -------------------------------- Summary: Allow CDIProvider to specify the priority Key: CDI-655 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-655 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Reporter: Martin Kouba Right now, the CDI class takes the first provider whose {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.CDIProvider.getCDI()}} does not return null. It might be useful to allow the CDIProvider authors to specify a priority (either by @Priority or by Prioritized) and sort the implementations so that providers with higher priority are taken first. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-646) Fix AnnotatedTypeConfigurator.add(), AnnotatedMethodConfigurator.add() and AnnotatedParameterConfigurator.add() javadoc

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-646?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba reassigned CDI-646: -------------------------------- Assignee: Martin Kouba > Fix AnnotatedTypeConfigurator.add(), AnnotatedMethodConfigurator.add() and AnnotatedParameterConfigurator.add() javadoc > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-646 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-646 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Affects Versions: 2.0-EDR2 > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Assignee: Martin Kouba > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > It says: {{Add an annotation to the field.}}. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-439) ProcessBean event section - make a reference to AfterBeanDiscovery#addBean()

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-439?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba commented on CDI-439: ---------------------------------- Also note that for a custom bean {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.ProcessBean.getAnnotated()}} may only return null or an empty impl. > ProcessBean event section - make a reference to AfterBeanDiscovery#addBean() > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-439 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-439 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 1.2.Final > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Right now, "11.5.10. ProcessBean event" does not state anything about the fact that {{AfterBeanDiscovery#addBean()}} fires an event of type {{ProcessBean}} (no subtype as the info is not available for custom Bean implementation). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev November 2016