October 2011 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-138) Allow an extension to register an interceptor bindings with an AnnotatedType

by Kevin Pollet (JIRA)

Allow an extension to register an interceptor bindings with an AnnotatedType ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-138 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-138 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Interceptors, Portable Extensions Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Kevin Pollet Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) At BeforeBeanDiscovery phase an interceptor binding could be added with an {{AnnotatedType}} instead of annotation class. This could allow to add annotations to existing annotation attributes. For example this case is needed for annotations {{@CacheResult}}, {{@CacheRemoveEntry}} and {{@CacheRemoveAll}} from JSR-107 which haven't annotation attributes annotated with {{@NonBinding}}. The method signature could be: * {{BeforeBeanDiscovery#addInterceptorBinding(AnnotatedType<?> annotatedType, Annotation... bindingTypeDef)}} -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

4
13
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-141) remove overly strict Serialization requirements for @Inject method and ct parameters

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

remove overly strict Serialization requirements for @Inject method and ct parameters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Key: CDI-141 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-141 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Bug Components: Beans, Resolution Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Mark Struberg Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) Section 6.6.4 declares that: > If a producer method declares a passivating scope and: > .. > * has a parameter that does not resolve to a passivation capable > dependency, > then the container automatically detects the problem and > treats it as a deployment problem. Something like @Produces @SessionScoped @AutoAuthenticated public User getCurrentUser(MyConfig mc) { return ... (MyConfig is not Serializable and gets produced as @ApplicationScoped) would not be allowed. The same restriction currently applies to parameters of @Inject methods and constructors: >If a managed bean which declares a passivating scope: > has a ... , bean constructor parameter or initializer method parameter > that does not resolve to a passivation capable dependency, ... This maybe comes from simple @Inject setters which set the given method parameters 1:1 into class members. But for all other cases this restriction is just way too rigid. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

3
6
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-178) Require container-provided InjectionTarget implementation to use getInjectionPoints()

by Jozef Hartinger (Created) (JIRA)

Require container-provided InjectionTarget implementation to use getInjectionPoints() ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-178 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-178 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Portable Extensions Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Jozef Hartinger Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) A CDI extension should be able to turn a field of a into a CDI injection point as easily as by overriding the getInjectionPoints() method of the container-provided InjectionTarget implementation e.g.: {code} event.setInjectionTarget(decorate(event.getInjectionTarget())); ... protected <T> InjectionTarget<T> decorate(final InjectionTarget<T> delegate) { return new ForwardingInjectionTarget<T>() { @Override public Set<InjectionPoint> getInjectionPoints() { Set<InjectionPoint> injectionPoints = new HashSet<InjectionPoint>(); injectionPoints.addAll(super.getInjectionPoints()); injectionPoints.addAll(); // additional injection points return injectionPoints; } @Override protected InjectionTarget<T> delegate() { return delegate; } }; } {code} However, the spec does not require the container-provided InjectionTarget implementation to make use of the getInjectionPoint() method when creating a new instance. As a result, the approach above may or may not work. Therefore, it is currently necessary for a portable extension to also provide an implementation of at least the inject() method (for field injection points) and implement the injection itself. This is problematic in 1.0 of the spec since a portable does not necessarily have access to the BeanManager instance of the BDA where the injection target is deployed, thus different visibility rules apply. Clarify that the container-provided implementation of the Producer interface should use the result of the getInjectionPoints() method as a source of information about the injection points to inject. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

6
10
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-124) Clarify how the ObserverMethod interface should be used

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

Clarify how the ObserverMethod interface should be used ------------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-124 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-124 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Components: Events Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Jozef Hartinger Fix For: TBD The CDI specification (10.5) says: "For a custom implementation of the ObserverMethod interface defined in Section 11.1.3, "The ObserverMethod interface", the container must call getReception() and getTransactionPhase() to determine if the observer method is a conditional or transactional observer method, and notify() to invoke the method." However, calling ObserverMethod.getReception() is useless. An ObserverMethod implementation can be registered by an portable extension via the AfterBeanDiscovery event. The observer method may or may not be hosted by a CDI bean: a) A portable extension adds a different way of declaring an observer method on a CDI bean (e.g. using a different annotation like @Listens, or allowing a different method signature) b) A portable extension allows CDI observer methods to be registered on non-CDI beans (e.g. on a Spring Bean) In both cases, the container is not able find out if an instance of the hosting component has been created already - it does not know the hosting bean in (a) and it obviously does not know anything about the Spring bean (b). Therefore, if the observer method is conditional (ObserverMethod.getReception() returns IF_EXISTS), the container cannot decide whether it should invoke the observer method since it has no way of finding out whether the underlying instance exists or not. As a result, the container has to invoke ObserverMethod.notify() anyway. That's why I consider ObserverMethod.getReception() useless. To fix the problem, I think that the responsibility of deciding whether to invoke a conditional observer method should be shifted from container to the ObserverMethod implementation. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

2
4
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-177) Clarify how default bean EL name and @Named qualifier with no value at injection point are related

by Martin Kouba (Created) (JIRA)

Clarify how default bean EL name and @Named qualifier with no value at injection point are related -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-177 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-177 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Martin Kouba Related CDI 1.0 spec chapters: *2.5.2 Default bean EL names* *3.11 The qualifier @Named at injection points* -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

4
12
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-157) Enabling/Disabling Extensions

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

Enabling/Disabling Extensions ----------------------------- Key: CDI-157 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-157 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Pete Muir Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

3
9
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-170) Either ditch or fix @New

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

Either ditch or fix @New ------------------------ Key: CDI-170 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-170 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Bug Components: Concepts, Contexts Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Mark Struberg Fix For: TBD The specification of @New is currently not really usable. It is really only for creating injected but unmanaged and unintercepted instances of a class. But this usecase is weird and imo just not needed. If the class under construction is an 'old' Pojo (without @Inject, etc) then it doesn't need to get managed. And it also doesn't provide any benefit over just using new Pojo(); Also you cannot @New classes which don't have a default ct. I just found no sane scenario where we cannot use a producer method instead. Can we simply deprecate @New? -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

8
19
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-110) Allow proxying of abstract classes (Service Handler)

by George Gastaldi (JIRA)

Allow proxying of abstract classes (Service Handler) ---------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-110 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-110 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Inheritance and Specialization Affects Versions: 1.1 (Proposed) Reporter: George Gastaldi According to mojavelinux: {quote} <mojavelinux> service handler, interceptors and decorators are all complementary <mojavelinux> and cdi is missing the first...which we now realize {quote} CDI 1.1 should provide a way to inject abstract classes by specifying a ServiceHandler (Check http://docs.jboss.org/seam/3/solder/latest/reference/en-US/html/serviceha...) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

10
34
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-147) Are EJB's not deployed in a bean archive eligible for CDI injection

by Stuart Douglas (JIRA)

Are EJB's not deployed in a bean archive eligible for CDI injection ------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-147 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-147 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Reporter: Stuart Douglas If an EJB is deployed in an ejb-jar without a beans.xml, is this EJB eligible for CDI injection of beans deployed in other modules? The spec says: "The container performs dependency injection on all session and message-driven bean instances, even those which are not contextual instances." To me this sounds like the intent was to allow injection into EJB's looked up from JNDI, does this also mean that EJB's in non bean archives should also be injected? -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

2
4
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-156) Clarify that EJB3-style interceptors are applicable to CDI managed beans

by Marius Bogoevici (JIRA)

Clarify that EJB3-style interceptors are applicable to CDI managed beans ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Key: CDI-156 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-156 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Reporter: Marius Bogoevici -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 3 months

4
10
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev October 2011