April 2013 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-362) No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting

by Mark Struberg (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Mark Struberg commented on CDI-362: ----------------------------------- > Still would need to tackle the @Stateful @SomeCdiScope case ~pmuir yes I can elaborate: think about a {code} @Stateful @SessionScoped public class MyBackingBean {... {code} It gets the lifecycle from CDI. It's Contextual Instances will get stored in the SessionContext from CDI. But still it's an EJB. Which proxy will it get? I assume it will get stored in the SessionContext _with_ the 1:1 EJB proxy already applied, right? And we will _outside_ in BeanManager#getReference() return a CDI NormalScoping proxy? So we have proxies from both CDI and EJB involved - thus what rules shall apply? > No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-362 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > E.g. > // allowed by EJB > // disallowed by CDI > @Stateful @RequestScoped > public class MyBean { > final void m() { }; > } > public class Other { > @EJB MyBean field; // PASS > @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable > } -- 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-362) No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting

by Marina Vatkina (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Marina Vatkina commented on CDI-362: ------------------------------------ RI does throw an EJB exception on access of a package private method > No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-362 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > E.g. > // allowed by EJB > // disallowed by CDI > @Stateful @RequestScoped > public class MyBean { > final void m() { }; > } > public class Other { > @EJB MyBean field; // PASS > @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable > } -- 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-362) No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting

by Marina Vatkina (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Marina Vatkina commented on CDI-362: ------------------------------------ How the above was interpreted as an ability for an EJB to expose non-public methods on a proxy? > No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-362 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > E.g. > // allowed by EJB > // disallowed by CDI > @Stateful @RequestScoped > public class MyBean { > final void m() { }; > } > public class Other { > @EJB MyBean field; // PASS > @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable > } -- 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-362) No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Pete Muir commented on CDI-362: ------------------------------- CDI descries what can't be proxied: {quote} The container uses proxies to provide certain functionality. Certain legal bean types cannot be proxied by the container: * classes which don’t have a non-private constructor with no parameters, * classes which are declared final, * classes which have non-static, final methods with public, protected or default visibility, * primitive types, * and array types. {quote} and then goes on to say when and how these rules are applied: {quote} A bean type must be proxyable if an injection point resolves to a bean: * that requires a client proxy, or * that has an associated decorator, or * that has a bound interceptor. Otherwise, the container automatically detects the problem, and treats it as a deployment problem. {quote} To answer your specific questions: 1) Yes - CDI never looks at private methods when considering whether a type is proxyable. 2) non-private methods cannot be declared final in order to be proxied > No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-362 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > E.g. > // allowed by EJB > // disallowed by CDI > @Stateful @RequestScoped > public class MyBean { > final void m() { }; > } > public class Other { > @EJB MyBean field; // PASS > @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable > } -- 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-362) No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting

by Marina Vatkina (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Marina Vatkina commented on CDI-362: ------------------------------------ Pete, can we list all the rules and identify any inconsistencies? 1. final rule - does CDI allow private methods to be final if it is a no-interface view? 2. non-public methods - I know at least one EJB container that followed the CDI spec and not so much the EJB spec and proxied protected methods. I need to check if RI actually follows the EJB spec rule about the EJBException. > No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-362 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > E.g. > // allowed by EJB > // disallowed by CDI > @Stateful @RequestScoped > public class MyBean { > final void m() { }; > } > public class Other { > @EJB MyBean field; // PASS > @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable > } -- 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-362) No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Pete Muir commented on CDI-362: ------------------------------- [~mvatkina] CDI also doesn't place any restrictions on proxying for final private methods. Can EJB adopt the CDI rules, as you've already changed this since EJB 3.1? > No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-362 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > E.g. > // allowed by EJB > // disallowed by CDI > @Stateful @RequestScoped > public class MyBean { > final void m() { }; > } > public class Other { > @EJB MyBean field; // PASS > @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable > } -- 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-364) EventMetadata - API declares getType() method but the spec text declares getResolvedType() instead

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-364?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Pete Muir resolved CDI-364. --------------------------- Resolution: Done Thanks, I've changed the spec to say getType() and used Jozef's language for the javadoc and spec. > EventMetadata - API declares getType() method but the spec text declares getResolvedType() instead > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-364 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-364 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Assignee: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > Also it's not entirely clear what "the resolved event Type" means... no such term was used in the Events section 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

FD submission

by Pete Muir

Hi all, As you've probably noticed, we haven't submitted the final draft yet. Due to a number of late issues, and some integration issues (e.g. see the recent emails about lifecycle interceptor problems), we've had to slip the date slightly. We are planning to submit on April 12th, with the ballot following. This will be around the same date that Java EE and EJB submit. Pete

11 years, 8 months

1
1
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-362) No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting

by Marina Vatkina (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Marina Vatkina commented on CDI-362: ------------------------------------ EJB 3.1 said "All methods of the bean class and any superclasses must not be declared final". We tried to relax this restriction, and it is definitely too harsh for private methods - you can't access them through proxy anyway. We can relax less, but there is no good reason to prevent final private methods. > No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-362 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > E.g. > // allowed by EJB > // disallowed by CDI > @Stateful @RequestScoped > public class MyBean { > final void m() { }; > } > public class Other { > @EJB MyBean field; // PASS > @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable > } -- 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-362) No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting

by Pete Muir (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Pete Muir commented on CDI-362: ------------------------------- [~struberg] can you elaborate on what you mean? > No-interface view EJB proxying rules are less strict than CDI, leading to odd error reporting > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-362 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-362 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1.FD > > > E.g. > // allowed by EJB > // disallowed by CDI > @Stateful @RequestScoped > public class MyBean { > final void m() { }; > } > public class Other { > @EJB MyBean field; // PASS > @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable > } -- 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 April 2013