10:36 a.m.
We have 4 tests which all show 1 (b) and we have zero tests which show 1 (a).
As I told you almost a month ago: provide tests which prove your claim and then we can
verify. You always claimed 1 (a) and I proved all your claims wrong so far. It's still
your turn to provide tests which underline your claims. Until then it's just mere
believe and not a fact.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
Cc: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>; "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org"
<cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility
T hese are facts. You claim that all the certified application servers
implement 1(b). You support this by providing a single testcase. There
are other testcases that show the opposite and indicate that what you
observe is not "application servers implementing 1(b)" but rather
"application servers behaving the 1(b) way in a limited portion of
scenarios, the 1(a) way in other portion of scenarios and there are also
scenarios where each application server behaves differently".
On 11/27/2012 04:46 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> It's enough to use Mark's example and replace the specializing
bean with
>> an alternative. Or add another web archive. You do not really have to
do
>> much to find out that Mark's argument is a side-effect of the Weld
bug I
>> already mentioned that affects a certain portion of usecases. Other
than
>> that the containers do not have anything in common with 1(b).
> Jozef, please don't add any personal interpretation but purely stick to
the facts!
>
> ALL the tested cases act like 1.(a) in ALL TESTED AND CERTIFIED EE6
servers so far!
>
> To change this now will imo introduce backward incompatibility!
>
> If you like it or not is another story. But please stick to the facts!
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
>> To: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
>> Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>;
"cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and visibility
>>
>> On 11/26/2012 10:28 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>> On 26 Nov 2012, at 21:12, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> As Joe already mentioned, maybe we should split this into
EJBs with CDI
>> annotations on them and 'pure CDI beans'?
>>>> In the case of pure CDI beans like @Dependent or JSR-330
beans -
>> basically all beans without a proxy - I have no clue where one would do
the TCCL
>> switch.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>>> I read what Jozef said to mean "It's not correct
>> ...". And he is
>>>>> correct, as he says Weld does behave like (b) in edge
cases,
>> however it
>>>>> certainly doesn't behave like (b) in mainstream
cases.
>>>> Show off, Pete ;)
>>> I'm not sure what you mean here. I was simply saying that I
hadn't
>> had the same inference you had from Jozef's comment.
>>>> I already published a few examples for @Specializes,
@Alternatives and
>> could easily add @Decorator and @Interceptor examples. All show 1.(b)
behaviour
>> on Weld, GlassFish, JBossAS, etc. I'm still missing a single
example where
>> it's a clear 1.(a) in an EAR scenario..
>>> Sure, the more examples we have the better!
>>>
>>> I'll check with Jozef exactly where Weld does and doesn't
follow
>> the 1(a) behavior tomorrow, so that I'm not just speculating.
>> It's enough to use Mark's example and replace the specializing
bean with
>>
>> an alternative. Or add another web archive. You do not really have to
do
>> much to find out that Mark's argument is a side-effect of the Weld
bug I
>> already mentioned that affects a certain portion of usecases. Other
than
>> that the containers do not have anything in common with 1(b).
>>>> To again emphasise this: there is no single container which
is _not_
>> broken for EAR right now the one way or the other. We could of course
keep this
>> backward compatible ;)
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
>>>>> To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
>>>>> Cc: Joseph Bergmark <bergmark(a)us.ibm.com>;
>> "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:47 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] @ApplicationScoped and
visibility
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Nov 2012, at 19:41, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe the OWB actually follows 1a
>>>>>>> as the question is currently written. When the
EJB is
>> executing,
>>>>>>> the thread context classloader would be that of
the ejb
>> module so the
>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> bean would be injected for that module.
>>>>>> Nope, OWB follows 1b and is thus perfectly in sync
with all the
>> other EE
>>>>> containers I tested (feel free to grab my app and test
yourself!).
>> CDI != EJB.
>>>>> There is (currently) no magical TCCL change involved in
any CDI
>> call chain. Not
>>>>> in OWB and also not in Weld so far afaik.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. Weld never sets the TCCL. But other things such as
EJB might
>> to in JBoss
>>>>> AS. Stuart, can you comment?
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev