Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.

Jozef, your argumentation is flawed already at the very beginning. Currently there is no bean with the name "javax", thus "x.y ... and x is the bean name of the other bean" will not be a problem. All that javax is simply not a bean name but a dirty hack in the ELResolver. That is something totally different.

Thus the rest of your argumentation chain is also invalid. LieGrue, strub > On Thursday, 15 January 2015, 10:47, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> T he @Named("javax") argument is not valid. The spec says: > Suppose two beans are both available for injection in a certain war, and > either: > - the two beans have the same bean name and the name is not resolvable, or > - the bean name of one bean is of the form x.y, where y is a valid bean > name, and x is the bean > name of the other bean, > the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a > deployment problem. > > So we have two beans: > - javax.enterprise.context.conversation (the built-in one) > - javax (Marks's bean) > > now: > > 1) the bean name of one bean is of the form x.y, where y is a valid bean > name - that is javax.enterprise.context.conversation > x = javax > y = enterprise.context.conversation > 2) and x is the bean name of the other bean - same as the name of Mark's > @Named("javax") bean > 3) the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a > deployment problem > > Therefore, a bean named @Named("javax") will cause a deployment > problem > no matter whether it is actually available via EL or not. > > To summarize, the spec already anticipates the problem and forbids this > case explicitly. > > > > On 01/14/2015 04:45 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> And then break all applications which have a @Named("javax") > public class MyBean? >> It's simply not an option imo. It breaks lots of other specs and > features. This is an XOR situation. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> Cc: Cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>; Edward Burns > <edward.burns(a)oracle.com&gt; >>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 11:56 >>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." > is not valid in an EL name. >>> We need to go for both (A) and (B). >>> >>> We would need to deprecate the existing name before we can allow it to > not be >>> supported. This means CDI 3. So I would suggest we deprecate it in 2, > add an >>> alternative that can be used, and then consider removing it in CDI 3. > In the >>> meantime for CDI 2, we will need to improve the TCK to check this more >>> carefully. >>> >>>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 10:09, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>>> +1 for B (IMO it is not used that much) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>> @rmannibucau >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-01-14 10:54 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger > <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt;: >>>>> I think further action is needed on this. Now that it has > been >>> confirmed >>>>> that "javax.enterprise.context.conversation" itself > is not a >>> valid EL >>>>> name we should either: >>>>> >>>>> A) Require all CDI implementations to adapt the > property-based approach >>>>> which allows this to be implemented portably (as Weld does) >>>>> B) Declare publicly that although the CDI spec declares the > given name, >>>>> it is a bug and applications should not use the name. (What > about >>>>> compatibility with existing applications?) >>>>> >>>>> Jozef >>>>> >>>>> On 01/08/2015 09:27 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>>>> Dear CDI fellows! >>>>>> >>>>>> I've received an answer regarding our EL question > from the EL >>> Spec Lead. >>>>>> Ed, thanks for helping us! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> LieGrue, >>>>>> strub >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 23:14, Edward Burns >>> <edward.burns(a)oracle.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello Mark, >>>>>>> To close this out, no, "." is not valid in > an EL >>> name. An EL name >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> be a java identifier. I'm told this was > discussed by Pete >>> a long time >>>>>>> ago in the EL 3.0 EG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> | edward.burns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017 >>>>>>> | 42 days til DevNexus 2015 >>>>>>> | 52 days til JavaLand 2015 >>>>>>> | 62 days til CONFESS 2015 >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 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 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 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 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. >