Hi
just as a little feedback i think ejbs could be added respecting EE
hierarchy (classloader) because it really eases integratino with legacy
modules (without beans.xml)
*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau <
*Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github:
Hi Pete!
I was drafting on a general 'implicit bean archive' mail for a few days,
but I got side tracked and it is/was not yet ready.
I feel a bit uncomfortable with the introduction of 'implicit bean
archives' in general. Or at least I don't yet have enough understanding to
think it's well enough defined.
I'm not sure where the benefit over the clear beans.xml yes/no behaviour
we had in CDI-1.0 is, but anyway. Let's put this aside and see how it might
work
If I understood it correctly, the intended behaviour is as following:
* a JAR without any beans.xml but with beans with a CDI scope. Those
classes (only the ones with cdi scopes) get scanned.
* only those cdi-scoped classes get fired to ProcessAnnotatedType, right?
* the Extension has no way to distinguish whether a class did come from an
implicit or explicit bean archive.
* What happens if the Extension removes the scope annotation via PAT? Will
it become @Dependent or not?
* what about EJBs in such a jar without a beans.xml? Is this also a 'bean
defining annotation'? Do they lead to firing a PAT for them? Can an
Extension rely on it? While thinking about this: is this even defined in
CDI-1.0? Section 12.1 + 11.5.5 define that a PAT must get fired for all
jars with beans.xml, but is it forbidden in cdi-1.0 to fire a PAT for e.g
EJBs in jars without any beans.xml in them?
The 'implicit but only a little' behaviour just blurs things imo. My gut
feeling is that we will see many corner cases where this will create
problems / need for clarification.
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)bleepbleep.org.uk>
>To: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>; Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:25 AM
>Subject: Fwd: [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean
discovery and @WithAnnotations
>
>
>The words I used were "explicit bean archive" and "implicit bean
archive"
- explicit because it has a beans.xml so is explicitly a bean archive, and
implicit as the inverse of this.
>
>
>If you've got other suggestions, I would love to hear them, but as usual,
this is the best *I* was able to come up with, and so complaining without
providing alternative ideas won't actually result in any improvement ;-)
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>From: "Mark Struberg (JIRA)" <jira-events(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>
>>Subject: [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean discovery
and @WithAnnotations
>>
>>Date: 11 March 2013 08:08:41 GMT
>>
>>To: pmuir(a)bleepbleep.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>Mark Struberg commented on CDI-346
>>Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
>> Agree. Plus it's also not possible in an Extension to know from which
'kind' of bean archive the current PAT did come from. We e.g. cannot make
this depending on any previously fired ProcessModule event as CDI
containers might run the discovery in parallel threads.
>>If some Extension gets a PAT with a class without any scope, should it
handle this class? Well, that depends whether this BDA is an 'automatic' or
a 'non-pickup' (whatever non-intuitive wording got chosen finally) bean
archive.
>>This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>>If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA
administrators
>>For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev