[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-401) Clarify the meaning of "bean class local view"
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-401?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Work on CDI-401 started by Antoine Sabot-Durand.
> Clarify the meaning of "bean class local view"
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-401
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-401
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge, Ready_to_fix
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> 3.2.2 Bean types of a session bean:
> {quote}
> The unrestricted set of bean types for a session bean contains all local interfaces of the bean and their superinterfaces. If the session bean has a *bean class local view*, the unrestricted set of bean types contains the bean class and all superclasses.
> ...
> {quote}
> AFAIK the EJB spec does not define anything like "bean class local view". I believe the CDI spec is referencing *No-Interface View* here (a variation of the local view that exposes the non-static public methods of the bean class without the use of a separate business interface).
--
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, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-397) Clarify Section 6.6.3 regarding singletons
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-397?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand reassigned CDI-397:
----------------------------------------
Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Clarify Section 6.6.3 regarding singletons
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-397
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-397
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Affects Versions: 1.1.FD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge, Ready_to_fix
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> The section 6.6.3 Passivation capable dependencies states:
> {quote}
> all singleton beans are passivation capable dependencies
> {quote}
> Clearly the specification intents to address *singleton session beans* but the current wording does not make that explicit and users confuse this line and consider javax.inject.Singleton-scoped beans also to be passivation capable dependencies.
> The spec should instead say that:
> {quote}
> all singleton *session* beans are passivation capable dependencies
> {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
10 years, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-401) Clarify the meaning of "bean class local view"
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-401?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand reassigned CDI-401:
----------------------------------------
Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Clarify the meaning of "bean class local view"
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-401
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-401
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge, Ready_to_fix
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> 3.2.2 Bean types of a session bean:
> {quote}
> The unrestricted set of bean types for a session bean contains all local interfaces of the bean and their superinterfaces. If the session bean has a *bean class local view*, the unrestricted set of bean types contains the bean class and all superclasses.
> ...
> {quote}
> AFAIK the EJB spec does not define anything like "bean class local view". I believe the CDI spec is referencing *No-Interface View* here (a variation of the local view that exposes the non-static public methods of the bean class without the use of a separate business interface).
--
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, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-422) Wrong example for event qualifier types with members
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand reassigned CDI-422:
----------------------------------------
Assignee: Martin Kouba
> Wrong example for event qualifier types with members
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-422
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Events
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Assignee: Martin Kouba
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> The following snippet in "10.2.2 Event qualifier types with members" is wrong:
> {code}
> public void login() {
> final User user = ...;
> loggedInEvent.fire( new LoggedInEvent(user),
> new RoleQualifier() { public String value() { return user.getRole(); } );
> }
> {code}
> {{javax.enterprise.event.Event.fire()}} method does not have qualifiers param. The example should either use {{Event.select(Annotation...)}} along with {{Event.fire()}} or {{BeanManager.fireEvent(Object, Annotation...)}}.
--
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, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-422) Wrong example for event qualifier types with members
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-422:
------------------------------------------
Right [~mkouba]. Nice catch ;). I added this to 1.2.
I have two remarks on this :
# There are other wrong example after this one assuming the existence of this qualifier param in {{javax.enterprise.event.Event.fire()}} method. In 10.2.3 for instance
{code}
documentEvent.fire( document, new UpdatedQualifier() {}, new ByAdminQualifier() {} );
{code}
# After the correction, theses examples, in order to be valid, should add {{@Inject @Any Event<LoggedInEvent> loggedInEvent;}} . But the notion of Injecting {{@Any Event<T>}} is introduced in part _10.3 Firing events_. To make the chapter easier to understand I propose to switch 10.2 and 10.3 (it doesn't sound stupid to deal with firing event before dealing with observer by the way).
> Wrong example for event qualifier types with members
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-422
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Events
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> The following snippet in "10.2.2 Event qualifier types with members" is wrong:
> {code}
> public void login() {
> final User user = ...;
> loggedInEvent.fire( new LoggedInEvent(user),
> new RoleQualifier() { public String value() { return user.getRole(); } );
> }
> {code}
> {{javax.enterprise.event.Event.fire()}} method does not have qualifiers param. The example should either use {{Event.select(Annotation...)}} along with {{Event.fire()}} or {{BeanManager.fireEvent(Object, Annotation...)}}.
--
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, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-422) Wrong example for event qualifier types with members
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-422:
-------------------------------------
Labels: CDI_spec_chge (was: )
> Wrong example for event qualifier types with members
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-422
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Events
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> The following snippet in "10.2.2 Event qualifier types with members" is wrong:
> {code}
> public void login() {
> final User user = ...;
> loggedInEvent.fire( new LoggedInEvent(user),
> new RoleQualifier() { public String value() { return user.getRole(); } );
> }
> {code}
> {{javax.enterprise.event.Event.fire()}} method does not have qualifiers param. The example should either use {{Event.select(Annotation...)}} along with {{Event.fire()}} or {{BeanManager.fireEvent(Object, Annotation...)}}.
--
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, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-422) Wrong example for event qualifier types with members
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-422:
-------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 1.2 Proposed
> Wrong example for event qualifier types with members
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-422
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Events
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> The following snippet in "10.2.2 Event qualifier types with members" is wrong:
> {code}
> public void login() {
> final User user = ...;
> loggedInEvent.fire( new LoggedInEvent(user),
> new RoleQualifier() { public String value() { return user.getRole(); } );
> }
> {code}
> {{javax.enterprise.event.Event.fire()}} method does not have qualifiers param. The example should either use {{Event.select(Annotation...)}} along with {{Event.fire()}} or {{BeanManager.fireEvent(Object, Annotation...)}}.
--
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, 6 months
Regarding CDI-280 and beans terminology
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi all,
I really think we should work for terminology simplification but I wonder if it’s realistic in our timeframe. According to me the easy part is :
- « Bean Class » for the class that gets Scanned : *Bean Class* (_quite obvious_)
- « Bean Metadata for Bean<T> : *Bean Metadata* using « Bean » here is confusing)
- « Required Type » for the type of injection type
- « Session Bean » for EJB bean
Now the more complex part is for the biggest one. From my understanding we have 2 concept with at least 3 different names :
- Contextual Instance = Bean Instance = Bean
- Contextual Reference = Client Proxy = Bean Reference
I I’m not wrong on this classification, we should really choose an official name for these 2 concepts
My personal choice would be « Bean Instance » and « Bean Reference » with perhaps a link to contextual names in chapter 6.
The term « Bean » could be reserved to mean one to the other when difference is not relevant…
What do you think ?
Antoine Sabot-Durand
———————————————
Twitter : @antoine_sd
CDI co-spec lead & eco-system development
Agorava tech lead
10 years, 6 months