6:38 p.m.
Therefore, I am wondering why this behavior is a problem? AFAIK
all the CDI implementations pass this test and therefore there may
(at
least in theory) be applications relying on this behavior.
I agree that we should not directly change the behaviour as we will break
customers relying on this behaviour.
Many thanks,
Emily
===========================
Emily Jiang
WebSphere Application Server Liberty Profile development
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278
Email: emijiang(a)uk.ibm.com
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
From: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net>, cdi-dev
<cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>,
Date: 20/07/2015 16:07
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Inconsistency in the spec regarding remote
EJBs
Sent by: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
On 20.7.2015 16:24, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:
Le lun. 20 juil. 2015 à 15:31, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com
<mailto:jharting@redhat.com>> a écrit :
As Martin explained, it is not the case that "remote EJBs are not
CDI
beans".
It's not written in black and white but in section 3.7 resources
(http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#resources) , remote
EJB are defined as resources and may can't be directly injected.
So if remote EJB are beans EntityManager or Web Services are as well.
Section 3.7 talks about injecting *references* to resources. In case of
remote EJBs and web services this would be clients (stubs) for accessing
those components. This section does not say anything about the component
definitions themselves.
Therefore, I am wondering why this behavior is a problem? AFAIK
all the CDI implementations pass this test and therefore there may
(at
least in theory) be applications relying on this behavior.
>
> As said in my first mail, EJB spec sates (section 3.2.1)
>
> "The arguments and results of the methods of the remote business
> interface are passed by value."
>
> I may be wrong but the observer in in the remote EJB is called with
> arguments passed by reference. So we are violating EJB specification.
>
> So IMO we should do something about this. Because the original concern
> of Bill was about beans injected in remote method observer parameters
> and how they were copied.
I see. This is quite weird then.
Any thought?
Antoine
Jozef
On 16.7.2015 15:25, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
> Bill Shanon, just pointed me to this test in TCK:
>
>
https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss...
>
> It tests the following assertion:
>
> "If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be
either a
> business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean
class.”
>
> The EJB containing the observers for the test is:
>
>
https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss...
>
> The EJB contains one business method coming from a local
interface, one
> from a remote and one static method. the 3 are observers methods
>
> The test expects that the remote business observer method should
be called.
>
> Here we have an inconsistency IMO. By doing this we are violating
rules
> the CDI spec regarding the fact that remote EJBs are not CDI
beans. And
> we are calling this remote business method passing the event
payload by
> reference and not by value which violates EJB specification
regarding
> remote EJB.
>
> I suggest that we change the assertion to:
>
> If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either
a
> local business method of the EJB or a static method of the
bean
class.
>
> and the TCK accordingly. Any thought ?
>
> Antoine
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@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.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU