December 2012 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-308) Things with a container assigned priority should start at 1500, not 1000

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

Pete Muir created CDI-308: ----------------------------- Summary: Things with a container assigned priority should start at 1500, not 1000 Key: CDI-308 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-308 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Reporter: Pete Muir This allows easy insertion before -- 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

11 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-307) Use @Priority annotation introduced in common annotations for ordering interceptors, decorators and alternatives

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

Pete Muir created CDI-307: ----------------------------- Summary: Use @Priority annotation introduced in common annotations for ordering interceptors, decorators and alternatives Key: CDI-307 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-307 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Reporter: Pete Muir Common annotations is introducing a @Priority annotation for ordering, we should update our spec to use this, possibly replacing the beans.xml approach. -- 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

11 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-294) Clarify that a Java EE component definition never results in a managed bean being created

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

Jozef Hartinger created CDI-294: ----------------------------------- Summary: Clarify that a Java EE component definition never results in a managed bean being created Key: CDI-294 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-294 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Components: Beans, Java EE integration Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Jozef Hartinger Assignee: Pete Muir Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) Having e.g. a Servlet that matches managed bean requirements, there is nothing in the spec saying that the container should not take the servlet class and make a managed bean out of it. This results in ProcessInjectionTarget being fired twice. Furthermore, it does not actually make any sense to have Java EE component definitions (e.g. Servlets) to act as managed beans. -- 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

11 years, 4 months

3
4
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-304) Clarify Producers for injection into generic types

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

Mark Struberg created CDI-304: --------------------------------- Summary: Clarify Producers for injection into generic types Key: CDI-304 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-304 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Components: Beans Affects Versions: 1.1.PRD Reporter: Mark Struberg There is a discussion over in DeltaSpike whether an injection point {code} @Inject private JsfMessage<SomeMessageClass>; {code} with a producer method {code} @Produces @Dependent JsfMessage createMessage(InjectionPoint ip) {code} 5.2 imo only defines the other way around. Having a raw type at the injection point and a parameterized producer method. We should define how this is intended to work. Please note that the producer above works in all existing containers so far but not in Weld2-beta1. -- 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

11 years, 4 months

2
2
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-305) Reflect the new EJB passivation-capable flag in CDI

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

Pete Muir created CDI-305: ----------------------------- Summary: Reflect the new EJB passivation-capable flag in CDI Key: CDI-305 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-305 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Java EE integration Affects Versions: 1.1.PRD Reporter: Pete Muir Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) EJB 3.2 adds the ability to disable passivation of SFSB by either using @Stateful(passivationCapable=false) or setting it in the DD. We should update the CDI spec to cover this. -- 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

11 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-306) Clarify that MDBs don't need to support injected constructors

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

Pete Muir created CDI-306: ----------------------------- Summary: Clarify that MDBs don't need to support injected constructors Key: CDI-306 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-306 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Components: Java EE integration Affects Versions: 1.0 Reporter: Pete Muir Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) -- 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

11 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility

by Pete Muir

CDI EG members, Please vote on the following two issues by indicating whether you prefer either option (a) or (b) to both questions (1) and (2). Please vote asap, voting closes as soon as I have a complete set of votes from the EG or at COB (Eastern) on 30th Nov, whichever happens sooner :-) Question 1, Visibility --------------------------- The CDI 1.0 specification states that only beans whose bean class is accessible (using standard classloader visibility rules) can be injected into another bean. For example, if you have a bean A in WAR, assuming standard Java EE classloader structure, it wouldn't be available for injection in bean B, in an EJB modiule. This generally makes sense, as the type is not visible either. CDI also offers two options to replace bean implementations transparently, without explicitly selecting that implementation (either by type or using a qualifier) - alternatives and specialization. First, let's consider specialization. For example, if bean B, from the example above, is specialized by bean S in the WAR, and bean C in the same EJB module as B injects a type B, then what should be injected (if anything). The CDI 1.0 specification addresses this issue by disabling any bean which has been specialized across the entire application. Therefore, according to CDI 1.0, this would result in an deployment problem (as there would be an unsatisfied injection point). Alternatives are addressed a little differently in CDI 1.0. For example, if bean B has an alternative A packaged in the WAR, then if A is selected in the war only, then if bean C in the same EJB module as B injects a type B, it would be injected with C. However, if A is selected for the EJB module as well, then the deployment should fail as beans.xml of the EJB module references S which it cannot see. Note that we have also added global visibility for alternatives in CDI 1.1, which may need revising based on what is decided here. The EG has debated two options. (a) maintain the status quo, as described by the CDI 1.0 spec (b) take an approach where visibility is isolated according to the calling context. Thus, if a call originates via the WAR, then specialization and enabled alternatives in the WAR are visible to any bean which is called in that stack. Approximately, Weld takes approach (a), and OWB takes approach (b), so which approach is more backwards compatible here is debatable. Question 2, @ApplicationScoped --------------------------------------------- CDI implementations have not consistently shared @ApplicationScoped beans across all modules of an EAR. Weld, and app servers built on Weld (those that we have surveyed include JBoss AS, GlassFish, WebLogic) have shared application scoped beans across the EAR. OWB isolates @ApplicationScoped beans to the calling context of the WAR, however applications servers built on OWB have shared beans across all modules of an EAR (this is certainly true of WebSphere, and I believe it is true of TomEE). The EG has debated two options. (a) require @ApplicationScoped beans to be shared across all modules of an EAR (b) take an approach where @ApplicationScoped beans are isolated to the calling context Whichever approach is taken, the EG is agreed that a scope that addresses the other option should be introduced. So, please indicated which options you favour: Question 1: (a) OR (b) Question 2: (a) OR (b) Thanks, Pete

11 years, 4 months

8
20
0 / 0

Meeting today cancelled

by Pete Muir

I will be in the air at the time of the meeting :-(

11 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-301) Provide XSD for 1.1 version of beans.xml

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

Martin Kouba created CDI-301: -------------------------------- Summary: Provide XSD for 1.1 version of beans.xml Key: CDI-301 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-301 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Affects Versions: 1.1.PRD Reporter: Martin Kouba -- 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

11 years, 4 months

3
3
0 / 0

Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility

by Faissal Boutaounte

MoroccoJUG votes : 1. a 2. a. *Faissal* *moroccoJUG.org co-founder* *http://faissalb.blogspot.com/* *http://twitter.com/#!/bfaissal* <http://twitter.com/#!/bfaissal>

11 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev December 2012