January 2015 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-496) Clarification (or completion) for interceptor binding to session bean

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-496?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-496: ------------------------------------- Affects Version/s: 1.2.Final > Clarification (or completion) for interceptor binding to session bean > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-496 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-496 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 1.2.Final > Reporter: Tomas Remes > > It's not clear if the session bean can have interceptor binding and what rules (if any) apply to this case. In the beginning of chapter 9. Interceptor bindings there is following statement: > {quote}Managed beans and EJB session and message-driven beans support interception.{quote} > But at the end of "9.3. Binding an interceptor to a bean" There is only: > {quote} > If a managed bean has a class-level or method-level interceptor binding, the managed bean must > be a proxyable bean type, as defined in Section 3.15, “Unproxyable bean types”. > {quote} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-497) session scope doesn't follow session lifecycle

by Romain Manni-Bucau (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-497?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDI-497: ---------------------------------------- Sure, if invalidate is called during a request, session scope needs to be destroyed as well otherwise all usage of session scope beans later in the request is wrong and with corrupted data. > session scope doesn't follow session lifecycle > ---------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-497 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-497 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: Romain Manni-Bucau > > ATM session destroyed event is bound to the request. this means a logout will not be able to access the right session when destroyed since most of the time logout = session destruction and then you can recreate a session (login case). > Would be great to align CDI scopes - and then events - to the real lifecycle of the underlying observed event. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-497) session scope doesn't follow session lifecycle

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-497?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-497: ------------------------------------------ I'm not sure to understand your issue. Can you give a use case? > session scope doesn't follow session lifecycle > ---------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-497 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-497 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: Romain Manni-Bucau > > ATM session destroyed event is bound to the request. this means a logout will not be able to access the right session when destroyed since most of the time logout = session destruction and then you can recreate a session (login case). > Would be great to align CDI scopes - and then events - to the real lifecycle of the underlying observed event. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-497) session scope doesn't follow session lifecycle

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-497?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-497: ------------------------------------- Issue Type: Feature Request (was: Epic) > session scope doesn't follow session lifecycle > ---------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-497 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-497 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: Romain Manni-Bucau > > ATM session destroyed event is bound to the request. this means a logout will not be able to access the right session when destroyed since most of the time logout = session destruction and then you can recreate a session (login case). > Would be great to align CDI scopes - and then events - to the real lifecycle of the underlying observed event. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-234) behavior of arrays without @Nonbinding

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-234?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-234: ------------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 2.0 (discussion) (was: TBD) > behavior of arrays without @Nonbinding > -------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-234 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-234 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Concepts > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Romain Manni-Bucau > Assignee: Pete Muir > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 2.0 (discussion) > > > The spec says: > "Array-valued or annotation-valued members of a qualifier type should be annotated @Nonbinding in a portable application. > If an array-valued or annotation-valued member of a qualifier type is not annotated @Nonbinding, non-portable behavior > results." > The case of arrays without this annotation should be managed to get a better portability. The equality of arrays is determined through "Arrays" helper (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/annotation/Annotat...) so i don't think there is any technical issue to consider arrays as a field. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-232) Relax requirements for built-in Instance

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-232?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-232: ------------------------------------------ [~mkouba]Could give a use case where the current strict rules regarding Instance could bring limitation? > Relax requirements for built-in Instance > ---------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-232 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-232 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 1.1.EDR > Reporter: Martin Kouba > Fix For: TBD > > > 5.6.2. The built-in Instance > {quote} > The container must provide a built-in bean with: > * Instance<X> and Provider<X> for every legal bean type X in its set of bean types, > * every qualifier type in its set of qualifier types, > {quote} > This type/qualifier requirements seem to be too strict. Maybe we should omit these and instead force implementation to satisfy every injection point for every legal bean type and corresponding qualifiers found in application... or something like that. I'm not sure about the wording. > By the way Weld (2.0.0.Alpha2) does not fulfil these requirements at the moment. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-229) introduce @OverridesAttribute for @StereoType

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-229: ------------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 2.0 (discussion) (was: TBD) > introduce @OverridesAttribute for @StereoType > --------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-229 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-229 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Beans > Affects Versions: 1.1.EDR > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Fix For: 2.0 (discussion) > > > We recently had a thread on the DeltaSpike list about using StereoTypes in real world applications: http://markmail.org/thread/ntqwnsyukjvdwspm > ------ > Imagine the following Stereotype for my Services (I spare out the standard > stuff) > @StereoType @Secured @Transactional @ApplicationScoped > public @interface @Service {} > The problem here is that there is no way to 'propagate' any rolesAllowed from > @Service to @Secured, etc. > What I'd like to have is something like ... > public @interface @Service { > String[] rolesAllowed(); > TransactionAttributeType transactionType(); > } > where the rolesAllowed() would get propagated to the @Secured meta-annotation > and transactionType() to the @Transactional > ----------- > Gerhard Petracek now pointed me to a cool feature which is used in JSR-303 BVAL: @OverridesAttribute > http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/validation/OverridesAttribute.html > We should ping the BVAL EG for the details. There are quite a few little tricks and side effects to consider. > On the implementation side, we could e.g. pick the @StereoType annotation and automatically propagate those values to the AnnotatedType which get's passed to the Extensions -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-226) Clarify the @Singleton behaviour

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-226?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-226: ------------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 2.0 (discussion) (was: TBD) > Clarify the @Singleton behaviour > -------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-226 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-226 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Contexts > Affects Versions: 1.1.EDR > Reporter: Daniel Sachse > Labels: application-scoped, singleton > Fix For: 2.0 (discussion) > > > The specification should make a more clear statement about the Scope and Lifecycle of the @Singleton annotation. > ATM it is e.g. totally unclear, in which environment a Singleton is guaranteed to be a Singleton(JVM, EAR, WAR,... ). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-220) behaviour of CDI bean @Specializes session bean is undefined

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-220: ------------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 2.0 (discussion) (was: TBD) > behaviour of CDI bean @Specializes session bean is undefined > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: CDI-220 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-220 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Java EE integration > Affects Versions: 1.0, 1.1.EDR > Reporter: Mark Struberg > Assignee: Antoine Sabot-Durand > Labels: CDI_spec_chge > Fix For: 2.0 (discussion) > > > The current spec doesn't define what should happen if a CDI bean @Specializes a session bean, e.g. > @Stateless > public class Horse {..} > @ApplicationScoped @Specializes > public class Trakehner extends Horse {..} > Section 3.2.4 explicitely forbids the other way around. I think we should also treat the above case as error. > Otherwise we would end up getting different results whether we use @Inject or @EJB to inject a Horse. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-174) Define contexts and context lifecycle for Java SE

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-174?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-174: ------------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 2.0 (discussion) (was: TBD) > Define contexts and context lifecycle for Java SE > ------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-174 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-174 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Affects Versions: 1.0 > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 2.0 (discussion) > > -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.11#6341)

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev January 2015