Fwd: [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
by Pete Muir
The words I used were "explicit bean archive" and "implicit bean archive" - explicit because it has a beans.xml so is explicitly a bean archive, and implicit as the inverse of this.
If you've got other suggestions, I would love to hear them, but as usual, this is the best *I* was able to come up with, and so complaining without providing alternative ideas won't actually result in any improvement ;-)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Mark Struberg (JIRA)" <jira-events(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Subject: [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
> Date: 11 March 2013 08:08:41 GMT
> To: pmuir(a)bleepbleep.org.uk
>
>
>
> Mark Struberg commented on CDI-346
> Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
> Agree. Plus it's also not possible in an Extension to know from which 'kind' of bean archive the current PAT did come from. We e.g. cannot make this depending on any previously fired ProcessModule event as CDI containers might run the discovery in parallel threads.
>
> If some Extension gets a PAT with a class without any scope, should it handle this class? Well, that depends whether this BDA is an 'automatic' or a 'non-pickup' (whatever non-intuitive wording got chosen finally) bean archive.
>
> 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
12 years
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-349) Clarify the set of interceptor bindings for a method
by Martin Kouba (JIRA)
Martin Kouba created CDI-349:
--------------------------------
Summary: Clarify the set of interceptor bindings for a method
Key: CDI-349
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-349
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Reporter: Martin Kouba
Assignee: Pete Muir
Fix For: 1.1.FD
9.3 "Binding an interceptor to a bean", following sentence doesn't make much sense IMHO:
{quote}
The set of interceptor bindings for a method are those declared at class level includes those declared on stereotypes.
{quote}
The Interceptors 1.2 spec, 3.3 "Binding an Interceptor to a Component", states:
{quote}
The set of interceptor bindings for a method are those declared at class level combined with those declared at method level.
{quote}
The CDI spec partially "overrides" the Interceptors spec (ommits bindings declared at method level). We should either "override" the whole sentence (and include bindings declared at method level) or reword the sentence in the CDI spec to only define stereotypes as other source of interceptor bindings. I am in favor the latter.
--
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
12 years
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-348) Clarify which beans "have" bean defining annotations
by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)
Jozef Hartinger created CDI-348:
-----------------------------------
Summary: Clarify which beans "have" bean defining annotations
Key: CDI-348
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-348
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Components: Beans
Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
Assignee: Pete Muir
Priority: Blocker
Fix For: 1.1.FD
{quote}Any bean which has scope type is said to have a bean defining annotation.{quote}
The spec makes this vague statement and provides two examples which only cover the two simplest cases. What remains unclear is:
- if a bean class inherits a scope annotation definition from a superclass, should it be discovered in an implicit bean archive?
- if a bean inherits a scope from a stereotype, should it be discovered in an implicit bean archive?
- if a producer method / field has a scope annotation but the declaring bean is not a bean with bean defining annotation, whould the producer be discovered?
--
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
12 years
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-344) bean-discovery-mode should be specified
by Martin Kouba (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-344?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Martin Kouba commented on CDI-344:
----------------------------------
I think the spec should also explicitly define that all *explicit bean archives* result in {{bean-discovery-mode="all"}} behaviour (that's the way I understand it...).
> bean-discovery-mode should be specified
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-344
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-344
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> It seems that the only complete source of information about the *bean-discovery-mode* attribute is the schema file. The specification should better explain the attribute, list and explain allowed values.
--
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
12 years
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
by Mark Struberg (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-346?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Mark Struberg commented on CDI-346:
-----------------------------------
Agree. Plus it's also not possible in an Extension to know from which 'kind' of bean archive the current PAT did come from. We e.g. cannot make this depending on any previously fired ProcessModule event as CDI containers might run the discovery in parallel threads.
If some Extension gets a PAT with a class without any scope, should it handle this class? Well, that depends whether this BDA is an 'automatic' or a 'non-pickup' (whatever non-intuitive wording got chosen finally) bean archive.
> Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-346
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-346
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> {quote}
> First the container must discover types. The container discovers:
> • each Java class, interface or enum deployed in an explicit bean archive, and
> • each Java class interface, or enum with a bean defining annotation in an implicit bean archive.
> • each session bean
> that is not excluded from discovery.
> Then, container must create an AnnotatedType representing the type and fire an event of type ProcessAnnotatedType,
> as defined in Section 11.5.6, for:
> • every type discovered
> • each Java class, interface or enum that must be delivered to a ProcessAnnotatedType observer, where the event parameter
> is annotated with @WithAnnotations.
> {quote}
> Having a class
> a) in an implicit bean archive
> b) outside of bean archive
> that does not define a bean defining annotation and the class must be delivered to a @WithAnnotation PAT observer method.
> Should this class result in a bean definition (assuming it fulfils bean requirements)?
> Would not it be easier to add the category of classes that must be delivered to @WithAnnotations PAT observer to the implicit bean archive definition?
--
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
12 years
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-346) Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-346?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-346:
-------------------------------------
How does an extension distinguish a PAT fired for this additional type (only recognized as a result of @WithAnnotations - no resulting in a bean definition) from a PAT fired for a discovered type?
> Unclear relation between bean discovery and @WithAnnotations
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-346
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-346
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Pete Muir
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> {quote}
> First the container must discover types. The container discovers:
> • each Java class, interface or enum deployed in an explicit bean archive, and
> • each Java class interface, or enum with a bean defining annotation in an implicit bean archive.
> • each session bean
> that is not excluded from discovery.
> Then, container must create an AnnotatedType representing the type and fire an event of type ProcessAnnotatedType,
> as defined in Section 11.5.6, for:
> • every type discovered
> • each Java class, interface or enum that must be delivered to a ProcessAnnotatedType observer, where the event parameter
> is annotated with @WithAnnotations.
> {quote}
> Having a class
> a) in an implicit bean archive
> b) outside of bean archive
> that does not define a bean defining annotation and the class must be delivered to a @WithAnnotation PAT observer method.
> Should this class result in a bean definition (assuming it fulfils bean requirements)?
> Would not it be easier to add the category of classes that must be delivered to @WithAnnotations PAT observer to the implicit bean archive definition?
--
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
12 years
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-316) Adopt usage of the @since Javadoc tag
by Gunnar Morling (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Gunnar Morling commented on CDI-316:
------------------------------------
I was about to create a ticket for using @since, but then I saw that this one already exists :) The [Clirr Maven Plug-in|http://mojo.codehaus.org/clirr-maven-plugin/] could be used to create a report with all elements added in 1.1.
> Adopt usage of the @since Javadoc tag
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-316
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-316
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Javadoc and API
> Affects Versions: 1.1.PRD
> Reporter: George Gastaldi
> Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> It's a good practice to use the @since javadoc tag in the methods and interfaces/classes created in this new version.
> This is necessary when one need to figure out if some feature is targeted to work in 1.1 only, for example.
> This issue was created so that all the API code can be reviewed before the next release. Some classes already have this information, other still don't (@Vetoed is one that is missing, afaik)
--
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
12 years