February 2014 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-377) automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-377?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand edited comment on CDI-377 at 2/17/14 11:18 AM: -------------------------------------------------------------------- To sum up my understanding of {{@Singleton}} and other {{@Scope}} management, we have 3 options. # *Stop supporting them in CDI* Not possible IMO due to JSR 330 support and other bad side effects ({{@Dependent}} is annotated with {{@Scope}}) # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list* So by default ({{annotated}} bean-discovery-mode) classes with these Annotation wouldn't be considered as beans. {{@Dependent}} should be an exception. They would always be beans in {{all}} bean-discovery-mode. Perhaps the more consistent approach regarding mixing CDI and other JSR-330 beans in the same archive : allow me to have my Guice beans with {{@Singleton}} and CDI beans with CDI scopes living together. # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list unless one or more classes in the same archive are annotated with a {{@Dependent}} or any CDI Normal Scope annotation* In this case they wouldn't make their archive an implicit bean archive when they are alone. In the case of mixing JSR-330 beans and CDI beans the dev would have to explicitly put a {{@Vetoed}} on non CDI beans to avoid CDI treating them. was (Author: antoinesabot-durand): To sum up my understanding of {{@Singleton}} and other {{@Scope}} management, we have 3 options. # *Stop supporting them in CDI* Not possible IMO due to JSR 330 support and other bad side effects ({{@Dependent}} is annotated with {{@Scope}}) # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list* So by default ({{annotated}} bean-discovery-mode) classes with these Annotation wouldn't be considered as beans. {{@Dependent}} should be an exception. They would always be beans in {{all}} bean-discovery-mode. Perhaps the more consistent approach regarding mixing CDI and other JSR-330 beans in the same archive : allow me to have my Guice beans with {{@Singleton}} and CDI beans with CDI scopes living together. # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list unless one or more classes in the same archive are annotated with a {{@Dependent}} or any Normal Scope annotation* In this case they wouldn't make their archive an implicit bean archive when they are alone. In the case of mixing JSR-330 beans and CDI beans the dev would have to explicitly put a {{@Vetoed}} on non CDI beans to avoid CDI treating them. > automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic > --------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-377 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-377 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Java EE integration > Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD > Environment: glassfish-4 > Reporter: Reuben Pasquini > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, CDI_tck_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The jsr-330 dependency injection annotations (javax.inject.*) find use in javase environments using IOC packages like guice. > Adding a dependency on a jar that uses guice or whatever in a javase environment > to a war deployed to a jee7 container > results in CDI processing annotated classes intended for > app-managed injection. See this ticket filed with guava for a concrete example: > https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/issues/detail?id=1433 -- 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-377) automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-377?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand edited comment on CDI-377 at 2/17/14 11:17 AM: -------------------------------------------------------------------- To sum up my understanding of {{@Singleton}} and other {{@Scope}} management, we have 3 options. # *Stop supporting them in CDI* Not possible IMO due to JSR 330 support and other bad side effects ({{@Dependent}} is annotated with {{@Scope}}) # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list* So by default ({{annotated}} bean-discovery-mode) classes with these Annotation wouldn't be considered as beans. {{@Dependent}} should be an exception. They would always be beans in {{all}} bean-discovery-mode. Perhaps the more consistent approach regarding mixing CDI and other JSR-330 beans in the same archive : allow me to have my Guice beans with {{@Singleton}} and CDI beans with CDI scopes living together. # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list unless one or more classes in the same archive are annotated with a {{@Dependent}} or any Normal Scope annotation* In this case they wouldn't make their archive an implicit bean archive when they are alone. In the case of mixing JSR-330 beans and CDI beans the dev would have to explicitly put a {{@Vetoed}} on non CDI beans to avoid CDI treating them. was (Author: antoinesabot-durand): To sum up my understanding of {{@Singleton}} and other {{@Scope}} management, we have 3 options. # *Stop supporting them in CDI* Not possible IMO due to JSR 330 support and other bad side effects ({{@Dependent}} is annotated with {{@Scope}}) # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list* So by default ({{annotated}} bean-discovery-mode) classes with these Annotation wouldn't be considered as bean. {{@Dependent}} should be an exception. They would always be beans in {{all}} bean-discovery-mode. Perhaps the more consistent approach regarding mixing CDI and other JSR-330 beans in the same archive : allow me to have my Guice beans with {{@Singleton}} and CDI beans with CDI scopes living together. # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list unless one or more classes in the same archive are annotated with a {{@Dependent}} or any Normal Scope annotation* In this case they wouldn't make their archive an implicit bean archive when they are alone. In the case of mixing JSR-330 beans and CDI beans the dev would have to explicitly put a {{@Vetoed}} on non CDI beans to avoid CDI treating them. > automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic > --------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-377 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-377 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Java EE integration > Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD > Environment: glassfish-4 > Reporter: Reuben Pasquini > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, CDI_tck_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The jsr-330 dependency injection annotations (javax.inject.*) find use in javase environments using IOC packages like guice. > Adding a dependency on a jar that uses guice or whatever in a javase environment > to a war deployed to a jee7 container > results in CDI processing annotated classes intended for > app-managed injection. See this ticket filed with guava for a concrete example: > https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/issues/detail?id=1433 -- 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-377) automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-377?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand edited comment on CDI-377 at 2/17/14 11:16 AM: -------------------------------------------------------------------- To sum up my understanding of {{@Singleton}} and other {{@Scope}} management, we have 3 options. # *Stop supporting them in CDI* Not possible IMO due to JSR 330 support and other bad side effects ({{@Dependent}} is annotated with {{@Scope}}) # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list* So by default ({{annotated}} bean-discovery-mode) classes with these Annotation wouldn't be considered as bean. {{@Dependent}} should be an exception. They would always be beans in {{all}} bean-discovery-mode. Perhaps the more consistent approach regarding mixing CDI and other JSR-330 beans in the same archive : allow me to have my Guice beans with {{@Singleton}} and CDI beans with CDI scopes living together. # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list unless one or more classes in the same archive are annotated with a {{@Dependent}} or any Normal Scope annotation* In this case they wouldn't make their archive an implicit bean archive when they are alone. In the case of mixing JSR-330 beans and CDI beans the dev would have to explicitly put a {{@Vetoed}} on non CDI beans to avoid CDI treating them. was (Author: antoinesabot-durand): To sum up regarding {{@Singleton}} and other {{@Scope}} management, we have 3 options. # *Stop supporting them in CDI* Not possible IMO due to JSR 330 support and other bad side effects ({{@Dependent}} is annotated with {{@Scope}}) # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list* So by default ({{annotated}} bean-discovery-mode) classes with these Annotation wouldn't be considered as bean. {{@Dependent}} should be an exception. They would always be beans in {{all}} bean-discovery-mode. Perhaps the more consistent approach regarding mixing CDI and other JSR-330 beans in the same archive : allow me to have my Guice beans with {{@Singleton}} and CDI beans with CDI scopes living together. # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list unless one or more classes in the same archive are annotated with a {{@Dependent}} or any Normal Scope annotation* In this case they wouldn't make their archive an implicit bean archive when they are alone. In the case of mixing JSR-330 beans and CDI beans the dev would have to explicitly put a {{@Vetoed}} on non CDI beans to avoid CDI treating them. > automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic > --------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-377 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-377 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Java EE integration > Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD > Environment: glassfish-4 > Reporter: Reuben Pasquini > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, CDI_tck_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The jsr-330 dependency injection annotations (javax.inject.*) find use in javase environments using IOC packages like guice. > Adding a dependency on a jar that uses guice or whatever in a javase environment > to a war deployed to a jee7 container > results in CDI processing annotated classes intended for > app-managed injection. See this ticket filed with guava for a concrete example: > https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/issues/detail?id=1433 -- 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-377) automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-377?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-377: ------------------------------------------ To sum up regarding {{@Singleton}} and other {{@Scope}} management, we have 3 options. # *Stop supporting them in CDI* Not possible IMO due to JSR 330 support and other bad side effects ({{@Dependent}} is annotated with {{@Scope}}) # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list* So by default ({{annotated}} bean-discovery-mode) classes with these Annotation wouldn't be considered as bean. {{@Dependent}} should be an exception. They would always be beans in {{all}} bean-discovery-mode. Perhaps the more consistent approach regarding mixing CDI and other JSR-330 beans in the same archive : allow me to have my Guice beans with {{@Singleton}} and CDI beans with CDI scopes living together. # *Remove them from the list of bean defining annotations list unless one or more classes in the same archive are annotated with a {{@Dependent}} or any Normal Scope annotation* In this case they wouldn't make their archive an implicit bean archive when they are alone. In the case of mixing JSR-330 beans and CDI beans the dev would have to explicitly put a {{@Vetoed}} on non CDI beans to avoid CDI treating them. > automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic > --------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-377 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-377 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Java EE integration > Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD > Environment: glassfish-4 > Reporter: Reuben Pasquini > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, CDI_tck_chge > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The jsr-330 dependency injection annotations (javax.inject.*) find use in javase environments using IOC packages like guice. > Adding a dependency on a jar that uses guice or whatever in a javase environment > to a war deployed to a jee7 container > results in CDI processing annotated classes intended for > app-managed injection. See this ticket filed with guava for a concrete example: > https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/issues/detail?id=1433 -- 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-421) Organize the project as a Maven project with modules

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

Antoine Sabot-Durand created CDI-421: ---------------------------------------- Summary: Organize the project as a Maven project with modules Key: CDI-421 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-421 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Packaging and Deployment Reporter: Antoine Sabot-Durand Right now only the api sub-directory is a maven project. The spec part of the CDI spec project is managed with script. With CDI-413, we'll introduce Maven as the doc generation tool, so to ease the project management we should organize all as a maven project with a doc module and a api module. -- 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-382) Clarify interceptors are not associated with the result of a producer method/field

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-382?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-382: ------------------------------------------ ok for me > Clarify interceptors are not associated with the result of a producer method/field > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-382 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-382 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Interceptors > Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Assignee: Martin Kouba > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, Ready_to_fix > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The interceptors part from CDI-59 resolution [1] is missing in the final version of the spec, probably lost during the Interceptors section transfer to the Interceptors 1.2 spec. > [1] https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/110 > "Interceptors are not associated with the return value of a producer method or the current value of a producer field." -- 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-382) Clarify interceptors are not associated with the result of a producer method/field

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-382?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba commented on CDI-382: ---------------------------------- [~struberg], [~pmuir], [~arnelim] my final suggestion: *"Interceptor bindings declared on a producer method are not used to associate interceptors with the return value of the producer method."*. The Interceptors spec. says: bq. Interceptor bindings are intermediate annotations that may be used to associate interceptors with any component that is not itself an interceptor. So I believe we should only clarify the purpose of the interceptor bindings declared on a producer. > Clarify interceptors are not associated with the result of a producer method/field > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-382 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-382 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Interceptors > Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Assignee: Martin Kouba > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, Ready_to_fix > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The interceptors part from CDI-59 resolution [1] is missing in the final version of the spec, probably lost during the Interceptors section transfer to the Interceptors 1.2 spec. > [1] https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/110 > "Interceptors are not associated with the return value of a producer method or the current value of a producer field." -- 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-382) Clarify interceptors are not associated with the result of a producer method/field

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-382?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Work on CDI-382 started by Martin Kouba. > Clarify interceptors are not associated with the result of a producer method/field > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-382 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-382 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Interceptors > Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Assignee: Martin Kouba > Labels: CDI_spec_chge, Ready_to_fix > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > The interceptors part from CDI-59 resolution [1] is missing in the final version of the spec, probably lost during the Interceptors section transfer to the Interceptors 1.2 spec. > [1] https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/110 > "Interceptors are not associated with the return value of a producer method or the current value of a producer field." -- 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-318) @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Work on CDI-318 started by Martin Kouba. > @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-318 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Assignee: Martin Kouba > Priority: Minor > Labels: CDI_api_chge, Ready_to_fix > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > Is this intentional? Supertypes also include interfaces which are not very useful here as beans may inherit type-level metadata and members from superclasses only. > Is there any special use-case 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-318) @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba commented on CDI-318: ---------------------------------- PR sent: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/202 > @WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-318 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-318 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Assignee: Martin Kouba > Priority: Minor > Labels: CDI_api_chge, Ready_to_fix > Fix For: 1.2 Proposed > > > Is this intentional? Supertypes also include interfaces which are not very useful here as beans may inherit type-level metadata and members from superclasses only. > Is there any special use-case 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

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev February 2014