This change is in, and if you upgrade a schema to 1.1, by default,
it won't pick up classes without a bean defining annotation. This is
mostly covered in 12.1 and 12.4, the rest of the changes for this were
largely cosmetic or the section in chapter 2 defining a bean defining
annotation.
Hmm, I don't read 12.1 that way. There is no single mentioning of 'Dependent'
nor Scope in the whole paragraph 12! The only 'loose' grip I could find is
Explicit bean archives may contain classes which are not deployed as
beans...
Implicit bean archives are likely to contain classes which are not deployed as beans.
But this way to unspecific for a spec imo. 'may contain' is just not enough as
there is no single word about _how_ those beans shall be treated and what makes them not
being picked up.
Also there is still an explicit defaulting to @Dependent scope in 2.4.4
If the bean does not declare any stereotype with a declared default
scope, the default scope for the bean is @Dependent.
There is also a mentioning of a 'bean-discovery-mode' but no whatsoever
description what it means nor which values are allowed and how they behave.
I know the time is running out and you had a lot of other commitments, but I fear we have
to fix a few things before we ship the final version. How much time is until the final
deadline?
LieGrue,
strub
________________________________
From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
Cc: "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] PFD submission
On 22 Feb 2013, at 21:01, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de> wrote:
> Beans without any explicit scope still get picked up as @Dependent.
> I thought this was agreed to get dropped if beans.xml version=1.1 ?
This change is in, and if you upgrade a schema to 1.1, by default, it won't pick up
classes without a bean defining annotation. This is mostly covered in 12.1 and 12.4, the
rest of the changes for this were largely cosmetic or the section in chapter 2 defining a
bean defining annotation.
>
> There are quite a few other wording and formatting changes which got added by bulk
I don't think there are any "bulk" changes (except Martin's patch to
give every section an id), though I'm not quite sure what a "bulk" change
is. All of the changes I've put have addressed specific issues.
> and make it hard to check for the differences since the last time I checked (and the
EG didn't meet since 2 months ago).
Yes unfortunately my availability has been very patchy to work on the spec of late, for
which I can only apologise. I am actively looking at ways to improve this for the next
version of CDI (as we are now approaching the end of CDI 1.1, it's unlikely I can get
anything sorted out before then). I'll let the list know as soon as I have anything
definite in this area.
As usual, please do bring stuff up on the mailing list :-)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
> To: "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:44 PM
> Subject: [cdi-dev] PFD submission
>
> All,
>
> We need to submit the PFD on Wednesday next week.
>
> Please review the attached copy of the spec, it contains the current spec, with the
proposed changes I sent out earlier, along with excludes in XML.
>
> There isn't much more to add now, just a few bits of tidying up, which I'lll
aim to do on Monday.
>
>
> Please get any issues to me asap.
>
> Pete
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>