Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.

I agree with Martin. We *should* fix this situation in the long term, which is what I proposed. However in the short term there is no problem with not passing a particular test from the EL spec. Additionally this is provably implementable as Weld implements this, and many Java EE containers pass. As there are no other spec defined beans javax, then we do not conflict with any other spec by implementing it this way. On 14 Jan 2015, at 12:10, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Dne 14.1.2015 v 12:43 Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a): well there are 2 points: 1) a test should be added for it There was a CDI TCK test since 1.1 (org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.context.conversation.LongRunningConversationPropagatedByFacesContextTest). It has been modified a week ago (see also CDITCK-462) not to use "javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id". 2) test or not being certified means respecting the spec (pdf, javadoc + tests themselve) So if there is this test a container can't be certified for EL + CDI at the same time I don't think it's a problem. An EL TCK test can't evaluate "#{javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id}" as an illegal expression - it's obviously legal. The problem is "javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id" can't be simply used as a bean name. If it is, a workaround is needed (see also http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2015-January/005989.html). Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2015-01-14 12:35 GMT+01:00 Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;: Which EL test? On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:30, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: then it will not pass EL one Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2015-01-14 12:27 GMT+01:00 Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;: No, a Java EE container needs to pass this test. On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:21, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: so it means a JavaEE container will not pass this test but it is not an issue? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2015-01-14 12:20 GMT+01:00 Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;: I don’t think they should be excluded. The spec isn’t ambiguous about this, and it is supportable. On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:13, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: So for CDI 1.2 the test that tests this should not be excluded after all, correct? On 01/14/2015 11:56 AM, Pete Muir wrote: We need to go for both (A) and (B). We would need to deprecate the existing name before we can allow it to not be supported. This means CDI 3. So I would suggest we deprecate it in 2, add an alternative that can be used, and then consider removing it in CDI 3. In the meantime for CDI 2, we will need to improve the TCK to check this more carefully. On 14 Jan 2015, at 10:09, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: +1 for B (IMO it is not used that much) Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2015-01-14 10:54 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt;: 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&gt; 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.