August 2011 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-129) introduce @EnterpriseScoped (or similar)

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

introduce @EnterpriseScoped (or similar) ---------------------------------------- Key: CDI-129 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-129 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Contexts Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Mark Struberg Since @ApplicationScoped currently is defined in 6.5.2 as to be 'like in the Servlet specification' this means that you will get a new instance for every WebApplication (WAR file). There is currently no specified CDI scope for providing a single shared instance for a whole EAR. We could (ab-)use @Singleton for that, but this is currently not well defined at all. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 1 month

9
144
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-139) Support for unmanaged instances

by Joshua Davis (JIRA)

Support for unmanaged instances ------------------------------- Key: CDI-139 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-139 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Beans Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Joshua Davis Allow the creation of unmanaged instances. The CDI context will not keep track of these instances and the application will be responsible for cleaning them up. This is a fairly typical usage of other DI frameworks such as Guice and PicoContainer. Currently, if an ApplicationScoped object injects an {{Instance<T>}} interface, CDI will manage all instances returned by the {{get()}} method as dependents of the application scoped object. Those instances will be kept in memory by the CDI implementation and will only be GC'd when the application scoped object is destroyed (at the end of the application). This may look like a memory leak to the user (see WELD-920). >From P. Muir on WELD-920 {quote} We can describe instances which are attached (as the CDI 1.0 spec requires) as "managed" instances, and those which the user takes responsibility for cleaning up themselves as "unmanaged" instances. In CDI 1.1 I would like to add support for unmanaged instances (the impl will just hand these over and forget about them) and also to allow the app to request an unmanaged instance is cleaned up. Please can someone file a CDI issue for this? Weld could certainly be more friendly and more proactively discard instances. Ideas: 1) Analyse the dependent instance graph, and if there are no @PreDestroy/@Disposer callbacks on in the graph, do not store the dependent instance for cleanup (this would be a good general optimization (2) Add a config option to allow instances created from Instance to be held only as long as the app holds a reference, and if the app doesn't hold a reference for it's lifetime, then Weld would not do any cleanup (Weld would hold a weak ref). {quote} -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 1 month

6
18
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-132) Clarify which initial info AnnotatedType should contain

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

Clarify which initial info AnnotatedType should contain ------------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-132 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-132 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Reporter: Mark Struberg The spec is not exactly clear about the initial content of AnnotatedType. When initially building the AnnotatedType (e.g. before handing it over to the Extensions) we need to pre-fill them with the info from the annotations from the classes. Should this AnnotatedType: 1.) contain no annotations from superclasses? 2.) contain all annotations from superclasses? 3.) contain @Inherited annotations from superclasses? I think the other questions already got cleared up in CDI-70: Should AnnotatedType contain derived public? protected? private? methods/fields from a superclass? Imo it should contain all information which would be available by manually parsing any annotations. In other words: it should be possible to completely modify or emulate annotations of a parsed type. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 2 months

8
26
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-123) Using Seam XML extension for CDI and Candi XML as a guide, let's add the ability to do XML config back into the specification

by Richard Hightower (JIRA)

Using Seam XML extension for CDI and Candi XML as a guide, let's add the ability to do XML config back into the specification ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-123 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-123 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Concepts Affects Versions: 1.1 (Proposed) Reporter: Richard Hightower Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) Using Seam's CDI XML extension for CDI and Candi XML as a guide, let's add the ability to do XML config back into the specification. Annotations and Alternatives should always be the first line of offense for doing injection, decoration and interception. However, there are times when you want to configure things that don't fit well into this model. This is also useful for testing. This is not to give up type safeness via annotations, but to have some additional flexibility. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 2 months

8
12
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-120) Add an optional Portlet specification support

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

Add an optional Portlet specification support --------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-120 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-120 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Contexts Reporter: Mark Struberg We should mention the portlet specification and how CDI-1.1 should be utilised/supported in a portlet environment. This is an important prerequisite for the JSR-344 EG to deprecate the JSF @javax.faces.bean.ManagedBean capabilities. Imo there is currently no argument which prevents to run a CDI container from running in a portlet environment anyway. No CDI interface imports any javax.servlet.* class. It could affect the wording in 6.5.2. which defines the built in scopes as being 'as defined in the Servlet specification'. We could easily extend this to also cover the portlet definition. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 2 months

3
8
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-127) Add support for annotation scanning of Java enums

by Brian Leathem (JIRA)

Add support for annotation scanning of Java enums ------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-127 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-127 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Reporter: Brian Leathem It would be useful if Java enums were included in the CDI annotation scan. A use case for this is found in the Seam Faces project, where we would like to use annotations on enums for configuration purposes. The annotation would look like: @ViewConfig public enum Pages { ... } It is my understanding that the current CDI specification (1.0) does not require scanning of the enum and will not pick up the @ViewConfig annotation. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

12 years, 2 months

4
12
0 / 0

[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] 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] 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev August 2011