December 2016 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-668) Most Example with @Priority provide non fully qualified contant name

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand updated CDI-668: ------------------------------------- Affects Version/s: 2.0.Beta1 > Most Example with @Priority provide non fully qualified contant name > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-668 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-668 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Affects Versions: 2.0.Beta1 > Reporter: Antoine Sabot-Durand > > Example in spec show {{@Priority}} are assuming static import of {{javax.interceptor.Interceptor.Priority.APPLICATION}} > We should change them to show full qualified path or add static import to examples for readability sake. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-668) Most Example with @Priority provide non fully qualified contant name

by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)

Antoine Sabot-Durand created CDI-668: ---------------------------------------- Summary: Most Example with @Priority provide non fully qualified contant name Key: CDI-668 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-668 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Reporter: Antoine Sabot-Durand Example in spec show {{@Priority}} are assuming static import of {{javax.interceptor.Interceptor.Priority.APPLICATION}} We should change them to show full qualified path or add static import to examples for readability sake. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-667) Session beans in trimmed bean archive

by Emily Jiang (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Emily Jiang commented on CDI-667: --------------------------------- Session beans - beans with session bean annotations e.g. Stateful, Singleton, Stateless or defined as session beans via ejb descriptor. In my previous comment, I meant the javax.inject.Singleton not ejb Singleton:o. In summary, the extra beans to be discovered (with @javax.inject.Singleton or other @Scoped) are not session beans. > Session beans in trimmed bean archive > ------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-667 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Tomas Remes > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Currently it is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? > IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-667) Session beans in trimmed bean archive

by Romain Manni-Bucau (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDI-667: ---------------------------------------- Think EJB 3.2 2.9 section already solves it: {quote}An EJB packaged into a CDI bean archive and not annotated with javax.enterprise.inject.Vetoed annotation, is considered a CDI-enabled bean. The CDI container performs dependency injection on all instances of CDI-enabled session and message-driven beans{quote} So whatever mode it is the EJB will integrate with CDI if CDI is on. > Session beans in trimmed bean archive > ------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-667 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Tomas Remes > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Currently it is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? > IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-667) Session beans in trimmed bean archive

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Martin Kouba commented on CDI-667: ---------------------------------- bq. Session beans are and should still be considered as beans. I agree. We should somehow copy the text from "17.4. Default bean discovery mode for Java EE". bq. For the trimming, it just add @Singleton and other Scope beans, which are over above the cdi beans. I think session bean annotations are not enough. I'm not sure but I remember it was possible to use ejb descriptor instead of annotations. > Session beans in trimmed bean archive > ------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-667 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Tomas Remes > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Currently it is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? > IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-667) Session beans in trimmed bean archive

by Emily Jiang (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Emily Jiang edited comment on CDI-667 at 12/14/16 5:23 AM: ----------------------------------------------------------- Session beans are and should still be considered as beans. For the trimming, it just add @Singleton and other Scope beans, which are over above the cdi beans. was (Author: emilyj): Session beans are and should still be considered as beans. > Session beans in trimmed bean archive > ------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-667 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Tomas Remes > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Currently it is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? > IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-667) Session beans in trimmed bean archive

by Emily Jiang (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Emily Jiang commented on CDI-667: --------------------------------- Session beans are and should still be considered as beans. > Session beans in trimmed bean archive > ------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-667 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Tomas Remes > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Currently it is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? > IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-667) Session beans in trimmed bean archive

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Tomas Remes updated CDI-667: ---------------------------- Fix Version/s: 2.0 .Final > Session beans in trimmed bean archive > ------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-667 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Tomas Remes > Fix For: 2.0 .Final > > > Currently it is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? > IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-667) Session beans in trimmed bean archive

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Tomas Remes updated CDI-667: ---------------------------- Description: Currently it is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. was: Currently is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. > Session beans in trimmed bean archive > ------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-667 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Reporter: Tomas Remes > > Currently it is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? > IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-667) Session beans in trimmed bean archive

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

Tomas Remes created CDI-667: ------------------------------- Summary: Session beans in trimmed bean archive Key: CDI-667 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-667 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Reporter: Tomas Remes Currently is not obvious how session beans should be treated in trimmed bean archive. In other words are they considered as beans or not? IMO we should state that there are discovered as beans, but it's questionable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev December 2016