Re: [cdi-dev] where is defined javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id?
Well I am not sure. Reading EL spec and ECMA script I can't see any wording which will
imply a must to escape or quote the variable in this case. I think the current usage is
not forbidden anywhere. I tried to escape or quote the part of variable but it didn't
work. The result was considered as String instance or I got ParserException.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jozef Hartinger" <jharting(a)redhat.com>
To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>, "John D. Ament"
<john.d.ament(a)gmail.com>, "Tomas Remes" <tremes(a)redhat.com>
Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:19:16 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] where is defined javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id?
On 01/05/2015 10:09 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> The spec also only says that the BEAN must have this very
name and not that
>> the bean must be accessible by EL.
> Given what the name is for in CDI this can be implied.
well, but it's not up to the CDI impl to do this correctly.
No, my point was
that if a bean is given a name it implies that this
bean should be accessible via EL.
>> If we would really require this and the EL specification doesn't
>> support it, then the CDI spec would contradict the EL spec, right?
> No, it would mean that the name should be placed within quotes when
> accessing the conversation bean from EL.
The question is whether it really is defined in the EL spec that way. And further if the
EL TCK does test this or if this is non-portable. The TCK test doesn't use escaping
for what I saw. So this test is not ok.
Right, the TCK test should be fixed to
escape the name properly.
Why didn't we simply use underscores instead of dots? :)
LieGrue,
strub