5:53 a.m.
Well it is quite explicit:
1.6 Operators [] and .
The EL follows ECMAScript in unifying the treatment of the . and [] operators.
expr-a.identifier-b is equivalent to expr-a[“identifier-b”]; that is, the
identifier identifier-b is used to construct a literal whose value is
the identifier,
and then the [] operator is used with that value.
so javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id =
javax["enterprise"]["context"]["conversation"]["id"].
If then you follow the EL resolution agorithm there is no way which
can match our name case - and EL is only inspired from ECMA and doesnt
follow all its rules.
The best would be to add a "cdi" object (whatever name it is while it
is compliant) and to allow:
${cdi['javax.enterprise.context.conversation']} syntax, exactly like
requestScope can be used to get javax.servlet.* properties.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-06 12:46 GMT+01:00 Tomas Remes <tremes(a)redhat.com>:
Well I am not sure. Reading EL spec and ECMA script I can't see any wording which
will imply a must to escape or quote the variable in this case. I think the current usage
is not forbidden anywhere. I tried to escape or quote the part of variable but it
didn't work. The result was considered as String instance or I got ParserException.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jozef Hartinger" <jharting(a)redhat.com>
To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>, "John D. Ament"
<john.d.ament(a)gmail.com>, "Tomas Remes" <tremes(a)redhat.com>
Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:19:16 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] where is defined javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id?
On 01/05/2015 10:09 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> The spec also only says that the BEAN must have this very name and not that
>>> the bean must be accessible by EL.
>> Given what the name is for in CDI this can be implied.
>
> well, but it's not up to the CDI impl to do this correctly.
No, my point was that if a bean is given a name it implies that this
bean should be accessible via EL.
>
>
>>> If we would really require this and the EL specification doesn't
>>> support it, then the CDI spec would contradict the EL spec, right?
>> No, it would mean that the name should be placed within quotes when
>> accessing the conversation bean from EL.
>
> The question is whether it really is defined in the EL spec that way. And further if
the EL TCK does test this or if this is non-portable. The TCK test doesn't use
escaping for what I saw. So this test is not ok.
Right, the TCK test should be fixed to escape the name properly.
>
>
> Why didn't we simply use underscores instead of dots? :)
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the
Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other
ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual
property rights inherent in such information.