March 2017 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-692) isResolvable missing from 5.6.1

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-692?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-692: ------------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 2.0 .Final > isResolvable missing from 5.6.1 > ------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-692 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-692 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: John Ament > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Section 5.6.1 is missing the new isResolvable method http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/2.0.Beta1/cdi-spec.html#dynamic_lookup -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-692) isResolvable missing from 5.6.1

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-692?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-692: ------------------------------------------ [~meetoblivion] I was just answering [~tremes] remark. Your point is valid: {{isResolvable()}} is missing in all spec versions ;). > isResolvable missing from 5.6.1 > ------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-692 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-692 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: John Ament > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Section 5.6.1 is missing the new isResolvable method http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/2.0.Beta1/cdi-spec.html#dynamic_lookup -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-691) Fire initialized/destroyed for conversation and session scoped

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-691?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba commented on CDI-691: ---------------------------------- Of course not, but then you would have to use either an impl-specific API or a custom context. In both cases, it's a non-portable functionality. Also note that extensions are encouraged to synchronously fire these events. > Fire initialized/destroyed for conversation and session scoped > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-691 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-691 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: John Ament > > Section 6.7 indicates that initialized/destroyed are called for request and application scopes. need to also fire for conversation and session. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-691) Fire initialized/destroyed for conversation and session scoped

by John Ament (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-691?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] John Ament commented on CDI-691: -------------------------------- We can consider this a bug then I guess. The issue is that 6.9.1 doesn't mention it - http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/2.0-PFD/cdi-spec.html#builtin_contexts > Fire initialized/destroyed for conversation and session scoped > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-691 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-691 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: John Ament > > Section 6.7 indicates that initialized/destroyed are called for request and application scopes. need to also fire for conversation and session. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-691) Fire initialized/destroyed for conversation and session scoped

by John Ament (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-691?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] John Ament updated CDI-691: --------------------------- Issue Type: Bug (was: Feature Request) > Fire initialized/destroyed for conversation and session scoped > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-691 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-691 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: John Ament > > Section 6.7 indicates that initialized/destroyed are called for request and application scopes. need to also fire for conversation and session. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-694) Make an observer that uses both @Observes and @ObservesAsync forbidden

by John Ament (JIRA)

John Ament created CDI-694: ------------------------------ Summary: Make an observer that uses both @Observes and @ObservesAsync forbidden Key: CDI-694 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-694 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Bug Reporter: John Ament Not explicitly called out in the spec text, we should make an observer that has both annotations forbidden. RI presently throws a DefinitionException. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

Can an observer be both async and sync?

by John Ament

Section 10.4.4 has the following section which got me thinking public void refreshOnDocumentUpdate(@Observes(notifyObserver=IF_EXISTS) @Updated Document doc) { ... } public void asyncRefreshOnDocumentUpdate(@ObservesAsync(notifyObserver=IF_EXISTS) @Updated Document doc) { ... } I'm wondering, is it OK to have an observer method defined like this? public void asyncRefreshOnDocumentUpdate(@Observes(notifyObserver=IF_EXISTS) @ObservesAsync(notifyObserver=IF_EXISTS) @Updated Document doc) { ... } I don't see anything against this in the spec, but I suspect most people are going to think this shouldn't work. So I'm asking the question - should it work? John ________________________________ NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information which should be treated accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message, and destroy all physical and electronic copies. Thank you.

7 years, 10 months

3
3
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-687) Programmatic activation of an existing conversation by conversation id

by John Ament (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-687?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] John Ament commented on CDI-687: -------------------------------- Either/both. > Programmatic activation of an existing conversation by conversation id > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-687 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-687 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: John Ament > > Currently, conversation activation can only work if you have an HTTP request with cid query param passed in. We should expand this to allow any arbitrary lookup of conversation by id. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-691) Fire initialized/destroyed for conversation and session scoped

by John Ament (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-691?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] John Ament commented on CDI-691: -------------------------------- In the case of conversation at least, there is nothing stopping you from starting one in SE, is there? > Fire initialized/destroyed for conversation and session scoped > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-691 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-691 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: John Ament > > Section 6.7 indicates that initialized/destroyed are called for request and application scopes. need to also fire for conversation and session. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

Is InterceptionFactory a built in bean?

by John Ament

All, I don't see it explicitly called out in the spec, but should I be able to do this? CDI.current().select(InterceptionFactory.class).get() - e.g. is it a a bean, or can I only access it as a producer method or via BeanManager.createInterceptionFactory() ? Also, I found in the 2.0 beta 1 spec the following: public interface InterceptionFactory<T> { InterceptionProxyFactory<T> ignoreFinalMethods(); I believe InterceptionProxyFactory should be replaced with InterceptionFactory, if we haven't already fixed this. John ________________________________ NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information which should be treated accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message, and destroy all physical and electronic copies. Thank you.

7 years, 10 months

2
2
0 / 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev March 2017