September 2012 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[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

11 years, 8 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

11 years, 8 months

4
10
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-263) Specializing bean should not declare a name if the specialized bean does

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

Jozef Hartinger created CDI-263: ----------------------------------- Summary: Specializing bean should not declare a name if the specialized bean does Key: CDI-263 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-263 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Bug Components: Inheritance and Specialization Reporter: Jozef Hartinger Assignee: Pete Muir Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) The spec currently says: {quote} If Y has a name and X declares a non-defaulted bean EL name, the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error. {quote} However, it should say: {quote} If Y has a name and X declares a bean EL name, the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error. {quote} -- 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

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-87) Declarative control over classes including in bean archive scanning

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-87?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Pete Muir commented on CDI-87: ------------------------------ I've asked for this to be considered as a Java EE wide improvement. > Declarative control over classes including in bean archive scanning > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-87 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-87 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Packaging and Deployment > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > > Weld introduced a XML syntax for 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] Created: (CDI-154) How to treat Externalizable?

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

How to treat Externalizable? ---------------------------- Key: CDI-154 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-154 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Reporter: Mark Struberg we currently only check for Serializable and completely ignore Externalizable in the spec. Should we fix this? -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

11 years, 8 months

3
6
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-51) Support static injection

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-51?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-51: ------------------------------------ Now that we have injection into enums in place this would be quite similar I think. > Support static injection > ------------------------ > > Key: CDI-51 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-51 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Concepts > 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by Marius Bogoevici (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-82?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Marius Bogoevici commented on CDI-82: ------------------------------------- Proposed approach: "if a managed bean is declared as an EJB interceptor, it may have "wrong" lifecycle interceptor methods, and they should be ignored". > 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-74) State explicitely that Decorators must be implemented using subclassing

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-74?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Pete Muir updated CDI-74: ------------------------- Assignee: (was: Marius Bogoevici) Forum Reference: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/2010-May/002506.html (was: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/2010-May/002506.html) > State explicitely that Decorators must be implemented using subclassing > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-74 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-74 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Decorators > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Marius Bogoevici > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > > Subclassing should be mandatory for Decorators of managed beans which are not session beans (no restrictions in the case of the latter). > This ensures that: > - fields on pseudo scoped managed beans are accessible > - there's no restriction on what kinds of constructors may a managed bean have > - no extra bean instances are created when a managed bean is created -- 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-44) Clarify that interceptors must be implemented using subclassing, and clarify the behaviour of self-invocation

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-44?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sys... ] Pete Muir updated CDI-44: ------------------------- Assignee: (was: Marius Bogoevici) > Clarify that interceptors must be implemented using subclassing, and clarify the behaviour of self-invocation > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-44 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-44 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Interceptors > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Stuart Douglas > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > > When implementing interception using proxying the behaour of self invocation is quite well defined, if a method is invoked on the proxy it is intercepted, if it is invoked on the actual bean (usually through self-invocation) it is not. > When implementing interception though sub classing this is much less well definied, and the only way to track if an invocation is intercepted or not is through a thread local flag. At the moment in weld this is reset when a call is made on a client proxy, so if we have an intercepted bean A and a SessionScoped bean B and A invokes B when invokes A the second call to A is intercepted. If however B is pseudo scoped, then the second invocation is not intercepted. The correct behaviour here should be specified by the specification. -- 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-6) Clarify InjectionTarget method parameters

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-6?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.syst... ] Pete Muir reassigned CDI-6: --------------------------- Assignee: (was: Pete Muir) > Clarify InjectionTarget method parameters > ----------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-6 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-6 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Portable Extensions > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Jozef Hartinger > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > > For the inject() method, the spec says: "inject() performs dependency injection upon the given object". It is not clear to me what does the "given object" refer two. if the CDI implementation uses proxies to implement interceptors and decorators, I can see two candidates for "the given object": > - the product of the produce() method including interceptors and decorators -> a proxy > - the target instance -> the object created by calling a constructor (no interception/decoration) > Arguments for the first option > - Let's have and extension that adds additional dependency injection capabilities by providing a custom InjectionTarget implementation and wrapping default InjectionTarget instances with custom ones. The custom InjectionTarget implementation does the additional DI in the inject() method and delegates to the default InjectionTarget instance to finish the injection. This implementation needs a direct access to the target instance (it cannot access field values through a proxy) > - Interceptor-like behavior - similarity to interceptors, where the InvocationContext.getTarget() returns the (non-intercepted) target instance > Arguments for the second option > - the contract of the produce() method says: "produce() calls the constructor annotated @Inject if it exists, or the constructor with no parameters otherwise, as defined in Section 5.5.1, "Injection using the bean constructor", and returns the resulting instance. If the class has inter- ceptors, produce() is responsible for building the interceptors and decorators of the instance." which means it returns an intercepted/decorated instance. -- 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev September 2012