Re: [cdi-dev] DefinitionException vs DeploymentException

Am 03.03.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt;: If a given scenario is well defined in the specification such as this one: "If a managed bean which declares a passivating scope is not passivation capable then the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a deployment problem." then the RI should be firing DeploymentException and the TCK should require DeploymentException. If this does not happen then it is a bug. Please file an issue for each such bug you find. Jozef On 03/03/2015 02:54 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi! > > I think we currently fail to have a clean notion about what should be a DefinitionException and what should be a DeploymentException. > > It seems like most of the TCK in this regard is just modelling Weld behaviour and follows no whatever logic. > > E.,g. we have 2 tests doing almost the same: > org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.bbd.broken.passivatingScope.AddingPassivatingScopeTest > Which according to the TCK should throw a DefinitionException > > and > > org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.context.passivating.broken.NonPassivationManagedBeanHasPassivatingScopeTest > which according to the TCK should throw a DeploymentException > > But BOTH actually do the same: they test if some managed bean implements Serializable. And both do this during bootstrap. > > > Am I blind and don’t see the difference, or is all this just madly broken? > > LieGrue, > strub > _______________________________________________ > 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.