Tests on observer resolution
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi all
Yesterday when reviewing Martin Pull Request [1] regarding CDI 422 [2], we started a discussion about Observer Resolution about a possible issue in the spec. I will not repeat what was said on the IRC, if you’re interested you can check the transcript [3] from 09:43.
To check if this was an issue or not I did some test this morning with different implementations. You can grab the tests on Github [4]
Good news : OWB and Weld (1.x and 2.x) have the same behavior : the one describe in the current spec, so there are no issue on this point.
The only strange thing for me is that @Any seems totally useless regarding events firing
If you write :
@Inject Event<Payload> payLoadEvent;
or
@Inject @Any Event<Payload> payLoadEvent;
You’ll always be allowed call payLoadEvent.select(new QualifierLiteral()) in both case...
Perhaps this point can be discussed to see if we remove @Any from the examples in the spec or if we enforce its usage in the specification…
Antoine
[1] https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/207
[2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-422
[3] http://transcripts.jboss.org/channel/irc.freenode.org/%23jsr346/2014/%23j...
[4] https://github.com/antoinesd/EventsTest
10 years, 1 month
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-408) bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-408:
------------------------------------------
this issue is related to other issues dealing with Bean Defining annotations
> bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-408
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Beans
> Reporter: Jens Schumann
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> Right now bean-discovery-mode="annotated" skips beans that are not annotated with an bean-defining annotation even if they contain an observer method or producer method/field. I would not recommend having (not annotated) @Dependent beans with @Observes or @Produces - I just had them by accident while playing around with Wildfly.
> However there are two impacts:
> 1. Someone might be confused by ignored @Producer's. Not a major issue here, the CDI runtime will report it. We could optionally document the behavior in the spec, so it's clear to everyone. However I think it's inconsistent, since @Produces may contain a scope (and has a default scope too). Therefore I would vote for @Produces support in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> 2. Since Observer methods in "not annotated" beans fail silently this can be a major issue for applications, especially if you migrate from CDI 1.0 (CDI 1.0 source code and CDI 1.0 thinking model). Therefore I believe @Observer methods have to be included in bean-discovery-mode="annotated" even if the enclosing bean does not have a bean-defining annotation. Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> I understand that the proposal above might have negative impacts on class scanning performance in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". However silently failing @Observes can be a major cause of defects that have to be treated because of technical and political reasons. Technical - because it may cause bugs. And political - because in my experience many people are still skeptical that CDI events are a trustworthy achievement[1]. Possibly skipped observer methods won't make live easier.
> If you believe the proposal would kill the original intent of bean-discovery-mode="annotated" please document the impact for Producers and Observers in the spec and even in the XSD.
> --
> [1] I have trained a couple hundred people in using CDI and CDI events. And every time I have to argument against the uncertainty on event delivery: "How do I know which observers are active?", "Who ensures that event's are delivered?"... I personally LOVE events;)
>
> Btw: Which JIRA version is CDI 1.1 Final?
--
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, 1 month
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-280) clarify usage of 'bean' term usage in the spec
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-280:
------------------------------------------
Removed from CDI 1.2 scope : too big and too late
> clarify usage of 'bean' term usage in the spec
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-280
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Reporter: Mark Struberg
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_api_chge, CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: TBD
>
>
> We should go to the spec and look up all 'bean' words as they are 5 different meaning the word 'bean' is used for
> * The Bean<T> extends Contextual<T>. Should be referred as 'Bean' or 'CDI Bean'
> * The class which gets scanned. Should be referred as 'Bean Class' to
> * The instance stored in the context. Should be referred to as 'Contextual Instance'
> * The proxy for a Contextual Instance should be referred to as 'Contextual Reference'
> * The type of an injection point should be referred to as 'InjectionPoint Type'
--
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, 1 month
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-280) clarify usage of 'bean' term usage in the spec
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-280:
-------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: TBD
(was: 1.2 Proposed)
> clarify usage of 'bean' term usage in the spec
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-280
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Reporter: Mark Struberg
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_api_chge, CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: TBD
>
>
> We should go to the spec and look up all 'bean' words as they are 5 different meaning the word 'bean' is used for
> * The Bean<T> extends Contextual<T>. Should be referred as 'Bean' or 'CDI Bean'
> * The class which gets scanned. Should be referred as 'Bean Class' to
> * The instance stored in the context. Should be referred to as 'Contextual Instance'
> * The proxy for a Contextual Instance should be referred to as 'Contextual Reference'
> * The type of an injection point should be referred to as 'InjectionPoint Type'
--
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, 1 month
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-408) bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-408:
------------------------------------------
Yes [~pmuir] and [~jason.greene] we all agrre on that (I hope so) for me it was implicit that option 3) includes a mention in the spec regarding that, while option 2) would warn the user at boot time.
Now the majority chose the option 3 (aka the RTFM option) we should be sure that the spec include something about it : "you shouldn't use default bean discovery mode to use Producers and Observers or annotate the beans that contains them with bean defining annotation (that's pretty clear). Should we spread it in different chapters (Producers and Event) or should we put it somewhere else ?
> bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-408
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Beans
> Reporter: Jens Schumann
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> Right now bean-discovery-mode="annotated" skips beans that are not annotated with an bean-defining annotation even if they contain an observer method or producer method/field. I would not recommend having (not annotated) @Dependent beans with @Observes or @Produces - I just had them by accident while playing around with Wildfly.
> However there are two impacts:
> 1. Someone might be confused by ignored @Producer's. Not a major issue here, the CDI runtime will report it. We could optionally document the behavior in the spec, so it's clear to everyone. However I think it's inconsistent, since @Produces may contain a scope (and has a default scope too). Therefore I would vote for @Produces support in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> 2. Since Observer methods in "not annotated" beans fail silently this can be a major issue for applications, especially if you migrate from CDI 1.0 (CDI 1.0 source code and CDI 1.0 thinking model). Therefore I believe @Observer methods have to be included in bean-discovery-mode="annotated" even if the enclosing bean does not have a bean-defining annotation. Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> I understand that the proposal above might have negative impacts on class scanning performance in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". However silently failing @Observes can be a major cause of defects that have to be treated because of technical and political reasons. Technical - because it may cause bugs. And political - because in my experience many people are still skeptical that CDI events are a trustworthy achievement[1]. Possibly skipped observer methods won't make live easier.
> If you believe the proposal would kill the original intent of bean-discovery-mode="annotated" please document the impact for Producers and Observers in the spec and even in the XSD.
> --
> [1] I have trained a couple hundred people in using CDI and CDI events. And every time I have to argument against the uncertainty on event delivery: "How do I know which observers are active?", "Who ensures that event's are delivered?"... I personally LOVE events;)
>
> Btw: Which JIRA version is CDI 1.1 Final?
--
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, 1 month
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-408) bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand edited comment on CDI-408 at 3/18/14 10:59 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes [~pmuir] and [~jason.greene] we all agree on that (I hope so). For me it was implicit that option 3) includes a mention in the spec regarding that, while option 2) would warn the user at boot time.
Now the majority chose the option 3 (aka the RTFM option) we should be sure that the spec include something about it : "you shouldn't use default bean discovery mode to use Producers and Observers or annotate the beans that contains them with bean defining annotation (that's pretty clear). Should we spread it in different chapters (Producers and Event) or should we put it somewhere else ?
was (Author: antoinesabot-durand):
Yes [~pmuir] and [~jason.greene] we all agrre on that (I hope so) for me it was implicit that option 3) includes a mention in the spec regarding that, while option 2) would warn the user at boot time.
Now the majority chose the option 3 (aka the RTFM option) we should be sure that the spec include something about it : "you shouldn't use default bean discovery mode to use Producers and Observers or annotate the beans that contains them with bean defining annotation (that's pretty clear). Should we spread it in different chapters (Producers and Event) or should we put it somewhere else ?
> bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-408
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Beans
> Reporter: Jens Schumann
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> Right now bean-discovery-mode="annotated" skips beans that are not annotated with an bean-defining annotation even if they contain an observer method or producer method/field. I would not recommend having (not annotated) @Dependent beans with @Observes or @Produces - I just had them by accident while playing around with Wildfly.
> However there are two impacts:
> 1. Someone might be confused by ignored @Producer's. Not a major issue here, the CDI runtime will report it. We could optionally document the behavior in the spec, so it's clear to everyone. However I think it's inconsistent, since @Produces may contain a scope (and has a default scope too). Therefore I would vote for @Produces support in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> 2. Since Observer methods in "not annotated" beans fail silently this can be a major issue for applications, especially if you migrate from CDI 1.0 (CDI 1.0 source code and CDI 1.0 thinking model). Therefore I believe @Observer methods have to be included in bean-discovery-mode="annotated" even if the enclosing bean does not have a bean-defining annotation. Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> I understand that the proposal above might have negative impacts on class scanning performance in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". However silently failing @Observes can be a major cause of defects that have to be treated because of technical and political reasons. Technical - because it may cause bugs. And political - because in my experience many people are still skeptical that CDI events are a trustworthy achievement[1]. Possibly skipped observer methods won't make live easier.
> If you believe the proposal would kill the original intent of bean-discovery-mode="annotated" please document the impact for Producers and Observers in the spec and even in the XSD.
> --
> [1] I have trained a couple hundred people in using CDI and CDI events. And every time I have to argument against the uncertainty on event delivery: "How do I know which observers are active?", "Who ensures that event's are delivered?"... I personally LOVE events;)
>
> Btw: Which JIRA version is CDI 1.1 Final?
--
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, 1 month
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-408) bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
by Martin Kouba (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Martin Kouba commented on CDI-408:
----------------------------------
[~pmuir] your comment reminds me that the following producer should not be discovered either:
{code:java}
class Producer {
@Produces @ApplicationScoped
Foo produce() {
...
}
}
{code}
Also not very intuitive for users although legal and covered in (among others) "5.1.2 Enabled and disabled beans".
> bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-408
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Beans
> Reporter: Jens Schumann
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> Right now bean-discovery-mode="annotated" skips beans that are not annotated with an bean-defining annotation even if they contain an observer method or producer method/field. I would not recommend having (not annotated) @Dependent beans with @Observes or @Produces - I just had them by accident while playing around with Wildfly.
> However there are two impacts:
> 1. Someone might be confused by ignored @Producer's. Not a major issue here, the CDI runtime will report it. We could optionally document the behavior in the spec, so it's clear to everyone. However I think it's inconsistent, since @Produces may contain a scope (and has a default scope too). Therefore I would vote for @Produces support in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> 2. Since Observer methods in "not annotated" beans fail silently this can be a major issue for applications, especially if you migrate from CDI 1.0 (CDI 1.0 source code and CDI 1.0 thinking model). Therefore I believe @Observer methods have to be included in bean-discovery-mode="annotated" even if the enclosing bean does not have a bean-defining annotation. Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> I understand that the proposal above might have negative impacts on class scanning performance in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". However silently failing @Observes can be a major cause of defects that have to be treated because of technical and political reasons. Technical - because it may cause bugs. And political - because in my experience many people are still skeptical that CDI events are a trustworthy achievement[1]. Possibly skipped observer methods won't make live easier.
> If you believe the proposal would kill the original intent of bean-discovery-mode="annotated" please document the impact for Producers and Observers in the spec and even in the XSD.
> --
> [1] I have trained a couple hundred people in using CDI and CDI events. And every time I have to argument against the uncertainty on event delivery: "How do I know which observers are active?", "Who ensures that event's are delivered?"... I personally LOVE events;)
>
> Btw: Which JIRA version is CDI 1.1 Final?
--
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, 1 month
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-408) bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
by Pete Muir (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Pete Muir commented on CDI-408:
-------------------------------
I agree with [~jason.greene], I don't want to extend the behavior, and instead to make it clear you need to use a class level annotation to make it a bean.
> bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-408
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-408
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Beans
> Reporter: Jens Schumann
> Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> Right now bean-discovery-mode="annotated" skips beans that are not annotated with an bean-defining annotation even if they contain an observer method or producer method/field. I would not recommend having (not annotated) @Dependent beans with @Observes or @Produces - I just had them by accident while playing around with Wildfly.
> However there are two impacts:
> 1. Someone might be confused by ignored @Producer's. Not a major issue here, the CDI runtime will report it. We could optionally document the behavior in the spec, so it's clear to everyone. However I think it's inconsistent, since @Produces may contain a scope (and has a default scope too). Therefore I would vote for @Produces support in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> 2. Since Observer methods in "not annotated" beans fail silently this can be a major issue for applications, especially if you migrate from CDI 1.0 (CDI 1.0 source code and CDI 1.0 thinking model). Therefore I believe @Observer methods have to be included in bean-discovery-mode="annotated" even if the enclosing bean does not have a bean-defining annotation. Of course the enclosing class is not a managed bean that may be injected somewhere.
> I understand that the proposal above might have negative impacts on class scanning performance in bean-discovery-mode="annotated". However silently failing @Observes can be a major cause of defects that have to be treated because of technical and political reasons. Technical - because it may cause bugs. And political - because in my experience many people are still skeptical that CDI events are a trustworthy achievement[1]. Possibly skipped observer methods won't make live easier.
> If you believe the proposal would kill the original intent of bean-discovery-mode="annotated" please document the impact for Producers and Observers in the spec and even in the XSD.
> --
> [1] I have trained a couple hundred people in using CDI and CDI events. And every time I have to argument against the uncertainty on event delivery: "How do I know which observers are active?", "Who ensures that event's are delivered?"... I personally LOVE events;)
>
> Btw: Which JIRA version is CDI 1.1 Final?
--
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, 1 month
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-411) CDI conversation activation conflicts with the Servlet spec
by Pete Muir (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-411?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Pete Muir commented on CDI-411:
-------------------------------
Append a sentence to the second section Jozef quotes in the description.
> CDI conversation activation conflicts with the Servlet spec
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-411
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-411
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Java EE integration
> Affects Versions: 1.1.FD
> Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
> Labels: CDI_spec_chge, CDI_tck_chge
> Fix For: 1.2 Proposed
>
>
> The Servlet specification says:
> {quote}
> If the client hasn't set character encoding and the request data is encoded with a
> different encoding than the default as described above, breakage can occur. To
> remedy this situation, a new method setCharacterEncoding(String enc) has been
> added to the ServletRequest interface. Developers can override the character
> encoding supplied by the container by calling this method. It must be called prior to
> parsing any post data or reading any input from the request. Calling this method
> once data has been read will not affect the encoding.
> {quote}
> The CDI specification says:
> {quote}
> The container provides a filter with the name "CDI Conversation Filter", which may be mapped in web.xml, allowing the
> user alter when the conversation is associated with the servlet request. If this filter is not mapped in any web.xml in the
> application, the conversation associated with a Servlet request is determined at the beginning of the request before calling any
> service() method of any servlet in the web application, calling the doFilter() method of any servlet filter in the web
> application and before the container calls any ServletRequestListener or AsyncListener in the web application.
> {quote}
> and
> {quote}
> The long-running conversation associated with a request may be propagated to any Servlet request via use of a request
> parameter named cid containing the unique identifier of the conversation.
> {quote}
> This implies that in the default setup (CDI Conversation Filter not mapped), a CDI implementation is required to determine the conversation at the beginning of the request. That means that it has to read the "cid" parameter before any listener/filter/servlet is invoked. Reading the "cid" parameter causes the request body to be read. Therefore, if a listener/filter/servlet attempts to set the request character encoding using the aforementioned setCharacterEncoding(String enc) method, this never has any effect because a CDI implementation has already read the request body using the default encoding.
> This can be worked around by mapping the CDI Conversation Filter and adding a custom encoding-setting filter before it. However, in the default configuration this issue often causes confusion.
--
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, 1 month