Re: [cdi-dev] CDI-136: Validation of passivation capability for SFSBs

From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina(a)oracle.com&gt; Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI-136: Validation of passivation capability for SFSBs To: "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Carlo de Wolf" <cdewolf(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Marina Vatkina" <Marina.Vatkina(a)sun.com&gt;, "cdi-dev" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 9:10 PM EJB spec usually doesn't mandate much validation. The only issue that I've seen with SFSB passivation was when it had a ref to an extended EM. It's not clear what does it mean for an EM to be serializable (the interface is not), so the JPA provider needs to be involved. But that would be a question for the JPA spec. Otherwise I haven't seen any requests... My $.02. -marina Pete Muir wrote: > All, > > David Blevins raised this issue https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-136 about CDI overstepping the it's responsibilities and validating that every SFSB must be passivation capable, not just those that belong to passivation capable scopes in CDI. > > I would assume this check was introduced because of a misinterpretation of the EJB spec that *all* SFSBs are passivation capable, not just some. Speaking to David, he has indicated this is certainly not the case. In this case, I think CDI is being somewhat presumptious and should validate only the beans that it needs to (those that belong to passivation capable scopes in CDI). > > EJB does not offer up any metadata about whether a SFSB is passivation capable, so I think this is the best we can do. Might be something for the EJB EG to consider - Marina, happy to raise there if you want? > > I will create a pull req for this issue shortly with the proposed fix, please comment on the issue as ever if you do not agree with the fix, within the next two weeks. > > Pete _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev