Busy with Devoxx France this week
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi guys,
I'll be at Devoxx France this Week giving talk on CDI. I won't be able to
attend our Tuesday meeting.
I'll be on PTO next week with no connexion, so our next meeting will be in
2 weeks on may 3rd.
Antoine
8 years, 8 months
CDI-494 (next attempt)
by Martin Kouba
Hi all,
this is my last attempt to push CDI-494 [1] forward. I'm not going to
describe the problem again, there is ML thread [2], issue comments [3],
pull request comments, etc.
But, I've prepared a simple sample (arquillian test) [4] to:
1. Show the current behavior (Weld 1.1, Weld 2.3, OWB 1.2, OWB 1.6)
2. Demonstrate what exactly is not possible to write in a portable way today
Interesting note: it seems OWB 1.6 partialy supports the behaviour I
tend to prefer - i.e. a wildcard type is not considered an unresolvable
type variable (although it does not always infer the parameterized type
consistently).
Feel free to comment the test, issue, etc. Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks,
Martin
[1]
https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/277
[2]
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2016-February/007789.html
[3]
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-494
[4]
https://github.com/mkouba/event-wildcard-test
--
Martin Kouba
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Czech Republic
8 years, 8 months
CDI 2.0 rodmap
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi guys,
Just to share with you the official roadmap that was validated and accepted
by Red Hat until CDI 2.0 release.
*Release date*: the target is December 2016 / January 2017
*Next early draft (EDR2)*: July 2016
*Next F2F*: tentatively in May/June or September (budget has to be approved
yet)
Antoine
8 years, 8 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-599) New lifecycle event to handle deployment/statup errors
by Mark Paluch (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Mark Paluch updated CDI-599:
----------------------------
Description:
With CDI 1.2 the only way to react to deployment/validation errors is to fail on the container start. Some exceptions could be handled/suppressed such as {{UnproxyableResolutionException}}. This ticket is to discuss a new lifecycle event which carries a deployment/validation error so a SPI developer can handle this problem. An example would be to allow unproxyable types in which case the error is reported, a portable extension tells the event to suppress the problem. This way the problem is handled and does not prevent the container start.
For the concrete example of allowing proxying of classes with non-private final methods the user gets a mechanism to run an application which does not conform fully with the CDI spec rules but at least the user is able to use his application.
was:
With CDI 1.2 the only way to react to deployment/validation errors is to fail on the container start. Some exceptions could be handled/suppressed such as {{UnproxyableResolutionException}}. This ticket is to discuss a new lifecycle event which carries a deployment/validation error so a SPI developer can handle this problem. An example would be to allow unproxyable types in which case the error is reported, a portable extension tells the event to suppress the problem. This way the problem is handled and does not prevent the container start.
For the concrete example of allowing proxy
> New lifecycle event to handle deployment/statup errors
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-599
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-599
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Components: Events
> Reporter: Mark Paluch
>
> With CDI 1.2 the only way to react to deployment/validation errors is to fail on the container start. Some exceptions could be handled/suppressed such as {{UnproxyableResolutionException}}. This ticket is to discuss a new lifecycle event which carries a deployment/validation error so a SPI developer can handle this problem. An example would be to allow unproxyable types in which case the error is reported, a portable extension tells the event to suppress the problem. This way the problem is handled and does not prevent the container start.
> For the concrete example of allowing proxying of classes with non-private final methods the user gets a mechanism to run an application which does not conform fully with the CDI spec rules but at least the user is able to use his application.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
8 years, 8 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-599) New lifecycle event to handle deployment/statup errors
by Mark Paluch (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Mark Paluch updated CDI-599:
----------------------------
Description:
With CDI 1.2 the only way to react to deployment/validation errors is to fail on the container start. Some exceptions could be handled/suppressed such as {{UnproxyableResolutionException}}. This ticket is to discuss a new lifecycle event which carries a deployment/validation error so a SPI developer can handle this problem. An example would be to allow unproxyable types in which case the error is reported, a portable extension tells the event to suppress the problem. This way the problem is handled and does not prevent the container start.
For the concrete example of allowing proxy
was:With CDI 1.2 the only way to react to deployment/validation errors is to fail on the container start. Some exceptions could be handled/suppressed such as {{UnproxyableResolutionException}}. This ticket is to discuss a new lifecycle event which carries a deployment/validation error so a SPI developer can handle this problem. An example would be to allow unproxyable types in which case the error is reported, a portable extension tells the event to suppress the problem. This way the problem is handled and does not prevent the container start.
> New lifecycle event to handle deployment/statup errors
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-599
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-599
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Components: Events
> Reporter: Mark Paluch
>
> With CDI 1.2 the only way to react to deployment/validation errors is to fail on the container start. Some exceptions could be handled/suppressed such as {{UnproxyableResolutionException}}. This ticket is to discuss a new lifecycle event which carries a deployment/validation error so a SPI developer can handle this problem. An example would be to allow unproxyable types in which case the error is reported, a portable extension tells the event to suppress the problem. This way the problem is handled and does not prevent the container start.
> For the concrete example of allowing proxy
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
8 years, 8 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-599) New lifecycle event to handle deployment/statup errors
by Mark Paluch (JIRA)
Mark Paluch created CDI-599:
-------------------------------
Summary: New lifecycle event to handle deployment/statup errors
Key: CDI-599
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-599
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Feature Request
Components: Events
Reporter: Mark Paluch
With CDI 1.2 the only way to react to deployment/validation errors is to fail on the container start. Some exceptions could be handled/suppressed such as {{UnproxyableResolutionException}}. This ticket is to discuss a new lifecycle event which carries a deployment/validation error so a SPI developer can handle this problem. An example would be to allow unproxyable types in which case the error is reported, a portable extension tells the event to suppress the problem. This way the problem is handled and does not prevent the container start.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
8 years, 8 months
slot of our next Hangout
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi all,
We need to plan an other hangout session to discuss about PR for CDI-558
(configurators for meta-data) in priority and other open pr in a second
time. Here are the slots I propose for it.
Please answer asap to this Doodle, so the majority will be able to attend.
http://doodle.com/poll/vu62u3wx5x5wtnu9
Antoine
8 years, 8 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-598) Clarify what happens if one of the interceptors in the AroundConstruct chain does not invoke InvocationContext.proceed()
by Martin Kouba (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-598?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Martin Kouba updated CDI-598:
-----------------------------
Description:
The interceptors spec only states (2.2 Interceptor Life Cycle):
{quote}
If the InvocationContext.proceed method is not invoked by an interceptor method, *the target instance will not be created*.
{quote}
But it's not clear what does it mean in the context of CDI.
Possible interpretations are:
* {{Contextual.create()}} returns null
* an exception (e.g. {{javax.enterprise.inject.CreationException}}) is thrown
I think the exception is more appropriate. Note that right now only @Dependent producer methods are allowed to return a null value.
By the way, the RI (Weld) currently returns null for beans which have no other interceptors associated and throws NPE for beans which also have other interceptor types associated. Also there is a TCK test which tests the "null" interpretation for a bean with only AroundConstruct interceptors. I'm going to create a separate TCK issue so that the test is redesigned.
was:
The interceptors spec only states (2.2 Interceptor Life Cycle):
{quote}
If the InvocationContext.proceed method is not invoked by an interceptor method, *the target instance will not be created*.
{quote}
But it's not clear what does it mean in the context of CDI.
Possible interpretations are:
* {{Contextual.create()}} returns null
* an exception (e.g. {{javax.enterprise.inject.CreationException}}) is thrown
I think the exception is more appropriate. Note that right now only @Dependent producer methods are allowed to return a null value.
By the way, the RI (Weld) currently returns null because there is a TCK test which requires this behavior. I'm going to create a separate TCK issue so that the test is redesigned.
> Clarify what happens if one of the interceptors in the AroundConstruct chain does not invoke InvocationContext.proceed()
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-598
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-598
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Interceptors
> Affects Versions: 1.2.Final
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
>
> The interceptors spec only states (2.2 Interceptor Life Cycle):
> {quote}
> If the InvocationContext.proceed method is not invoked by an interceptor method, *the target instance will not be created*.
> {quote}
> But it's not clear what does it mean in the context of CDI.
> Possible interpretations are:
> * {{Contextual.create()}} returns null
> * an exception (e.g. {{javax.enterprise.inject.CreationException}}) is thrown
> I think the exception is more appropriate. Note that right now only @Dependent producer methods are allowed to return a null value.
> By the way, the RI (Weld) currently returns null for beans which have no other interceptors associated and throws NPE for beans which also have other interceptor types associated. Also there is a TCK test which tests the "null" interpretation for a bean with only AroundConstruct interceptors. I'm going to create a separate TCK issue so that the test is redesigned.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
8 years, 8 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-598) Clarify what happens if one of the interceptors in the AroundConstruct chain does not invoke InvocationContext.proceed()
by Martin Kouba (JIRA)
Martin Kouba created CDI-598:
--------------------------------
Summary: Clarify what happens if one of the interceptors in the AroundConstruct chain does not invoke InvocationContext.proceed()
Key: CDI-598
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-598
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Components: Interceptors
Affects Versions: 1.2.Final
Reporter: Martin Kouba
The interceptors spec only states (2.2 Interceptor Life Cycle):
{quote}
If the InvocationContext.proceed method is not invoked by an interceptor method, *the target instance will not be created*.
{quote}
But it's not clear what does it mean in the context of CDI.
Possible interpretations are:
* {{Contextual.create()}} returns null
* an exception (e.g. {{javax.enterprise.inject.CreationException}}) is thrown
I think the exception is more appropriate. Note that right now only @Dependent producer methods are allowed to return a null value.
By the way, the RI (Weld) currently returns null because there is a TCK test which requires this behavior. I'm going to create a separate TCK issue so that the test is redesigned.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
8 years, 8 months
