September 2012 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-82) Clarify the usage of EJB3 interceptors as managed beans

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-82?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Pete Muir commented on CDI-82: ------------------------------ Marius, where is this defined as an error? > Clarify the usage of EJB3 interceptors as managed beans > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-82 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-82 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Beans, Interceptors, Java EE integration > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Marius Bogoevici > Assignee: Marius Bogoevici > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > > Background: > http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/2010-April/002484.html -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-266) Reflect CDI-50 resolution within CDI API

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

Jozef Hartinger created CDI-266: ----------------------------------- Summary: Reflect CDI-50 resolution within CDI API Key: CDI-266 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-266 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Jozef Hartinger Assignee: Pete Muir Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) In the latest version of the spec, @Requires has been dropped and @Veto has been renamed to @Vetoed. However, these changes are not reflected within the CDI API which still contains https://github.com/jboss/cdi/blob/master/api/src/main/java/javax/enterpri... and https://github.com/jboss/cdi/blob/master/api/src/main/java/javax/enterpri... -- 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, 8 months

2
1
0 / 0

CDI EG meeting, special Portlet edition

by Pete Muir

All, Late last week I created a draft of the proposed changes to add portlet support to the CDI spec. https://github.com/pmuir/cdi/compare/CDI-120 I think it makes sense to have a short call to run over those changes, especially with our portlet experts, and make sure we all agree it makes sense. I propose Thursday @ 17:00 UK time. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CDI+EG+meeting+%... Please let me know if this works for you (especially Neil, Mike and Julien!). Pete

11 years, 8 months

4
3
0 / 0

EG meeting 10th Spet 2012 CANCELLED

by Pete Muir

All, I have a webinar to deliver at the same time as the meeting. Mark was very busy last week and didn't have time to prepare any issues. Given this, I think it's best to cancel todays meeting. I'll try to schedule a short meeting for later in the week to go over the issues I've worked on, especially the portlet support, which is out for review atm with the various portlet experts I have on call. Pete

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-236) Injection point of type Instance/Event must have a type parameter

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

Martin Kouba created CDI-236: -------------------------------- Summary: Injection point of type Instance/Event must have a type parameter Key: CDI-236 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-236 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Reporter: Martin Kouba Priority: Minor IMHO this is not implied. One could think *{{@Inject Instance instance}}* is equivalent to *{{@Inject Instance<Object> instance}}*. Note that RI (Weld) does not allow this at the moment and treats *{{@Inject Instance instance}}* or *{{@Inject Event event}}* as a definition error. In any case the spec should clarify this so that we could write valid TCK tests for this. -- 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

11 years, 9 months

2
6
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-18) Global enablement of interceptors, decorators and alternatives

by Geoffrey De Smet (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-18?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Geoffrey De Smet commented on CDI-18: ------------------------------------- "a default priority for interceptors. I proposed 1000, the lowest priority for application interceptors." If negative numbers are allowed too, is there a specific reason not the default to 0? High priority => use positive number (for example +10). Low priority => use a negative number (for example -10). Normal priority => leave it at 0. > Global enablement of interceptors, decorators and alternatives > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-18 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-18 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Beans, Decorators, Interceptors, Packaging and Deployment > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > > Currently the spec defines that <interceptors>, <decorators> and <alternatives> affect only the Bean Archives where they are configured in (via beans.xml). > Thus if you e.g. enable an Alternative in a WEB-INF/beans.xml, it does NOT count for the jars in it's WEB-INF/lib folder! > This is pretty unhandy because you would need to repackage all your jars in your WEB-INF/lib folder and add/expand the <alternatives> sections in their beans.xml. > Needless to say that this is not only hard to do in a company build but is also impossibly to handle at deploy time in an OSGi environment! -- 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, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

Sorting out the "bean name" mess

by Pete Muir

All https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-250 The way a bean's name is referred to in the CDI spec is somewhat disjointed. I think this occurred because the CDI spec was written with the term "bean name", but it got changed due to concerns over confusion with: * JSF managed beans name * @ManagedBean name * EJB bean names As a result, we now have a mix of "bean name", "bean EL name", and "name", which is ultimately just confusing. I would like to standardize on a single term, and I would propose "bean name". Thoughts?

11 years, 9 months

3
5
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-18) Global enablement of interceptors, decorators and alternatives

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-18?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Pete Muir commented on CDI-18: ------------------------------ Bill Shannon notes that we need to define a default priority for interceptors. I proposed 1000, the lowest priority for application interceptors. > Global enablement of interceptors, decorators and alternatives > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-18 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-18 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Beans, Decorators, Interceptors, Packaging and Deployment > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > > Currently the spec defines that <interceptors>, <decorators> and <alternatives> affect only the Bean Archives where they are configured in (via beans.xml). > Thus if you e.g. enable an Alternative in a WEB-INF/beans.xml, it does NOT count for the jars in it's WEB-INF/lib folder! > This is pretty unhandy because you would need to repackage all your jars in your WEB-INF/lib folder and add/expand the <alternatives> sections in their beans.xml. > Needless to say that this is not only hard to do in a company build but is also impossibly to handle at deploy time in an OSGi environment! -- 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, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: [cdi-dev] Sorting out the "bean name" mess

by Edward Burns

>>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:04:43 +0100, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> said: PM> All PM> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-250 PM> The way a bean's name is referred to in the CDI spec is somewhat disjointed. PM> I think this occurred because the CDI spec was written with the term "bean name", but it got changed due to concerns over confusion with: PM> * JSF managed beans name PM> * @ManagedBean name PM> * EJB bean names PM> As a result, we now have a mix of "bean name", "bean EL name", and "name", which is ultimately just confusing. PM> I would like to standardize on a single term, and I would propose PM> "bean name". This is the sort of work that has zero immediate economic value, but much maintenance and quality value. I'm all for harmonizing all the usages to the term "bean name". Ed -- | edward.burns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017 | homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/

11 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-77) Clarify what happens when the user creates a unbound recursive injection with Dependent scoped beans

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-77?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Pete Muir updated CDI-77: ------------------------- Comment: was deleted (was: This was discussed at yesterdays EG meeting {quote} - Joe raised an issue that we will break existing CDI apps who have explicitly or implicitly (e.g. via a producer method) the same as a now defaulted qualifier - Mark thinks it's spec'd this way already, but Martin and I think it's not. Needs clarification! - Pete to investigate, but probably have to special case it that the name is only defaulted if not explicitly specified elsewhere or something - hold for now {quote}) > Clarify what happens when the user creates a unbound recursive injection with Dependent scoped beans > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-77 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-77 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Resolution > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > > for example > class Foo { > @Inject Bar bar; > } > class bar { > @Inject Foo foo; > } -- 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, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev September 2012