One thing is sure, when you have many JSF backing bean, you always end up
implementing Seralizable all over the place or inject transient object. It
would really simplify the code if Serialization was taken care by the
container, without having to implement Seralizable.
Antonio
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Can you elaborate? If a bean has a normal scope (passivating), it
may
need to be passivated. Are you talking about using a serialization tool
that does not require objects to implement Serializable and using such tool
to passivate a context?
Jozef
On 02/01/2015 04:44 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
+1 to clarify it. All normal scope dont need Serializable constraint -
even session scope - and it makes sense to not respect it in a lot of apps
without preventing these beans to be serializable thans their proxies.
Best IMO is to either remove it or to allow a scope serializer service to
be specified to keep it portable.
Wdyt?
Le 1 févr. 2015 13:36, "Antonio Goncalves" <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>
a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I was reading the CDI 1.2 spec and couldn't clearly find the way
> serialization and scopes work. The only explicit sentence I found was :
>
>
> *1.3.1. JSF example*
>
> *The @SessionScoped annotation defined in Section 2.4.1, “Built-in scope
> types” is a scope *
> *type that specifies the lifecycle of instances of Login. Managed beans
> with this scope must be*
> *serializable.*
>
>
> The Weld documentation is a bit more explicit :
>
> *5.2. Built-in scopes*
> *Managed beans with scope @SessionScoped or @ConversationScoped must be
> serializable, since the container passivates the HTTP session from time to
> time.*
>
>
> And in the Java EE Tutorial we find (
>
http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/tutorial/doc/gjbbk.html) :
>
> *Beans that use session, application, or conversation scope must be
> serializable*, but beans that use request scope do not have to be
> serializable.
>
>
> This even made be doubt about the application scope ?!?
>
>
> Any way, could we clarify this in the CDI spec ?
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>
> Web site <
http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter
> <
http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn
> <
http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Pluralsight
> <
http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris
> JUG <
http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx France <
http://www.devoxx.fr>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing
listcdi-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://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.
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
Web site <