[Vote] for CDI-616 resolution
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi all,
During yesterday(s meeting we discussed how to solve CDI-616 issue.
2 options are possible but we didn't find an agreement, so the best
solution here would be to vote.
Options are:
a) Do nothing about injection in transient fields (todays behaviour) but
add a clarification in the spec saying that using them is not supported.
b) Throw an exception at boot time if a transient field is an injection
point.
To vote, just answer to this mail with the letter of your vote. Vote will
last 72 hrs from the hour of this mail.
Thank you,
Antoine
8 years, 4 months
Fw: [Vote] for CDI-616 resolution
by Mark Struberg
a.)
> On Wednesday, 3 August 2016, 13:04, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de> wrote:
> > a.)
>
>
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> On Wednesday, 3 August 2016, 11:22, Antoine Sabot-Durand
> <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> During yesterday(s meeting we discussed how to solve CDI-616 issue.
>> 2 options are possible but we didn't find an agreement, so the best
> solution here would be to vote.
>>
>>
>> Options are:
>>
>>
>> a) Do nothing about injection in transient fields (todays behaviour) but add
> a clarification in the spec saying that using them is not supported.
>> b) Throw an exception at boot time if a transient field is an injection
> point.
>>
>>
>> To vote, just answer to this mail with the letter of your vote. Vote will
> last 72 hrs from the hour of this mail.
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>> Antoine
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>
>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code
> under the Apache License, Version 2
> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided
> on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property
> rights inherent in such information.
>>
>>
>
8 years, 4 months
Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-616 resolution
by Werner Keil
I'd say b.
Enforcing the correct behavior via API sounds better than a sentence in the
spec. And makes it easier to keep implementations and applications
compatible.
Werner
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:03 PM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org> wrote:
> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. [Vote] for CDI-616 resolution (Antoine Sabot-Durand)
> 2. Re: [Vote] for CDI-616 resolution (Emily Jiang)
> 3. Re: [Vote] for CDI-616 resolution (Romain Manni-Bucau)
> 4. Re: [Vote] for CDI-616 resolution (Matej Novotny)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:21:04 +0000
> From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net>
> Subject: [cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-616 resolution
> To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
> <
> CABu-YBSE4gAFtaa8jPLkkcOGpPci0Q3T6smneaAtCO0aC+UQcg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi all,
>
> During yesterday(s meeting we discussed how to solve CDI-616 issue.
> 2 options are possible but we didn't find an agreement, so the best
> solution here would be to vote.
>
> Options are:
>
> a) Do nothing about injection in transient fields (todays behaviour) but
> add a clarification in the spec saying that using them is not supported.
> b) Throw an exception at boot time if a transient field is an injection
> point.
>
> To vote, just answer to this mail with the letter of your vote. Vote will
> last 72 hrs from the hour of this mail.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Antoine
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20160803/16192536/at...
>
> End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 69, Issue 3
> **************************************
>
8 years, 4 months
Updated CDI-30 PR
by John D. Ament
All,
I just updated the CDI-30 PR with a couple of points.
- Don't require that a new instance of ManageableContext is returned each
time. With this the method got renamed. I didn't have a strong reason why
it needed to and Martin seemed to have a strong opinion that it must not.
- I'd like to know what else would be pending to get this merged in.
Obviously it would be great to see this in EDR2, and the PR's been open for
a month now.
https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/296
John
8 years, 4 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-468) Extend javax.interceptor.InvocationContext
by Martin Kouba (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-468?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Martin Kouba commented on CDI-468:
----------------------------------
[~antoinesabot-durand] This will not help for {{@Nonbinding}} value members (ignored by the resolution process).
> Extend javax.interceptor.InvocationContext
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-468
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-468
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Reporter: Arne Limburg
> Fix For: 2.0 (discussion)
>
>
> Currently there is no easy way to obtain the interceptor binding annotation for an interceptor call. The interceptor binding annotation is needed to access @Nonbinding attributes and behave accordingly.
> I propose to extend the javax.interceptor.InvocationContext interface with a method
> public Annotation getInterceptorBinding() or
> public <A extends Annotation> A getInterceptorBinding(Class<A> type)
> The @AroundInvoke method of CDI Interceptors may use this extended interface as parameter instead of the original one to obtain the interceptor binding annotation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
8 years, 4 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-468) Extend javax.interceptor.InvocationContext
by Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-468?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-468:
------------------------------------------
Guys, could be nice to add this to interceptor specification, but remember that we have the {{Interceptor}} bean that can be injected in any interceptor.
As described in the [spec|http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#interceptor] this bean gives access to the interceptors binding thru the {{getInterceptorBindings()}} method.
> Extend javax.interceptor.InvocationContext
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-468
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-468
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Reporter: Arne Limburg
> Fix For: 2.0 (discussion)
>
>
> Currently there is no easy way to obtain the interceptor binding annotation for an interceptor call. The interceptor binding annotation is needed to access @Nonbinding attributes and behave accordingly.
> I propose to extend the javax.interceptor.InvocationContext interface with a method
> public Annotation getInterceptorBinding() or
> public <A extends Annotation> A getInterceptorBinding(Class<A> type)
> The @AroundInvoke method of CDI Interceptors may use this extended interface as parameter instead of the original one to obtain the interceptor binding annotation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
8 years, 4 months
EDR 2.0 release this week
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi all,
As planned, I'll launch the EDR 2.0 process this week.I plan to set it for
45 days since final is always plan in January.
We'll discuss latest points during tomorrow's meeting.
Antoine
8 years, 4 months
F2F do we need video during the meeting?
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi all,
As only few of us will attend the f2f meeting physically, we are
considering setting up resources to set up video conference during part of
the meeting.
As this adds extra work on our side, I just wanted to know if people not
attending the meeting would be interesting in this broadcast. So please let
us know by answering this mail.
Thank you,
Antoine
8 years, 4 months
