Re: [cdi-dev] Fw: Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
I think further action is needed on this. Now that it has been confirmed
that "javax.enterprise.context.conversation" itself is not a valid EL
name we should either:
A) Require all CDI implementations to adapt the property-based approach
which allows this to be implemented portably (as Weld does)
B) Declare publicly that although the CDI spec declares the given name,
it is a bug and applications should not use the name. (What about
compatibility with existing applications?)
Jozef
On 01/08/2015 09:27 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Dear CDI fellows!
I've received an answer regarding our EL question from the EL Spec Lead.
Ed, thanks for helping us!
LieGrue,
strub
> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 23:14, Edward Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com>
wrote:
>> Hello Mark,
> To close this out, no, "." is not valid in an EL name. An EL name
> must
> be a java identifier. I'm told this was discussed by Pete a long time
> ago in the EL 3.0 EG.
>
> Ed
>
> --
> | edward.burns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
> | 42 days til DevNexus 2015
> | 52 days til JavaLand 2015
> | 62 days til CONFESS 2015
>
_______________________________________________
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.