Re: [cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods

From: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods To: "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 8:24 AM I thought about it and I guess this restriction comes from the picture of using the @Inject methods and ct params as kind of dumb setters private MyClass x; public @Inject setX(MyClass x) {   this.x = x; } In this 'dumb' cases it would make sense. But inject methods could contain much more intelligence - even wrap those parameters in Serializable implementations themself. So I think the restriction is just too much... LieGrue, strub --- On Thu, 6/30/11, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods > To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; > Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 7:38 AM > > On 30 Jun 2011, at 08:34, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > Yes, the example with the EntityManager might be > confusing. Just s/EntityManager/SomeOtherClass/ :) > > (Btw, only EntityManagers provided by producer fields > are 'injectable resources' as per the spec and thus made > auto-serializable. > > Yes, that's what I wrote ;-) > > > Which is btw imo technically impossible if the EM > contains locking states. But that's another story... > > I don't believe CDI requires you to actually restore the > same EM on the other side of passivation, it's just the > reference must be passivation capable... We should > investigate this. > > > > > I wonder if Weld does implement this at all. We > recently got an issue reported for OWB that some parts of > Seam are not working. > > It does IIRC. > > > It looks like OWB performs those tests and fails with > a deployment exception whereas Weld doesn't detect it. > > Can you elaborate with the issue? > > > Are there TCK tests for this behaviour? > > There are some. > > > > > I'd favour to drop that language and functionality if > noone objects. > > Please file a CDI issue and we can discuss. > > > > > Btw, there are also a few other occurrences : > > 6.6.4 > >> If a managed bean which declares a passivating > scope: > >> * has a non-transient injected field, <- that > part is fine > >> bean constructor parameter or initializer method > parameter > >> that does not resolve to a passivation capable > dependency, or > > > > But I don't get the contructor parameter and @Inject > method parameter criteria. > > Right, it's the same thing. Add it to the issue. _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev