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

From: Adam Bien <abien(a)adam-bien.com&gt; Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; Cc: "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;, cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 9:59 AM On that note: is there a reason why there is no ElementType.PARAMETER as Target in @Inject?: @Target(value = {ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.CONSTRUCTOR, ElementType.FIELD}) @Retention(value = RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Documented public @interface Inject { } On 30.06.2011, at 10:24, Mark Struberg wrote: > 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