Re: [cdi-dev] bean archives

Am 04.05.2015 um 09:07 schrieb Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt;: Yes, chapter 5 is a bit confusing when it comes to composite Java EE modules. Comments inline: On 05/03/2015 12:20 AM, Emily Jiang wrote: > I agree with Mark. I am confused about section 5 and section 12. Weld-2 leaves the work of specifying the bean archive to the integrator. I am wondering how the new version of app server using Weld-2 can pass the CDI 1.1/1.2 CTS at all if the integrator creates its bean archives based on section 12. The TCK for CDI 1.0, 1,1 and 1.2 expect Chapter 12 to be implemented. Therefore, implementing bean archive as defined in Chapter 12 is the right approach for a Weld integrator. > > I am guessing CDI 1.1/1.2 cts, the updated version of CDI 1.0(?), is based on section 5. Can someone confirm? The spec needs to be updated to remove the conflict between section 5 and section 12. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Emily Jiang <emijiang6(a)googlemail.com&gt; > Date: Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:21 PM > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] bean archives > To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; > > > I agree with Mark. I am confused about section 5 and section 12. Weld-2 leaves the work of specifying the bean archive to the integrator. I am wondering how the new version of app server using Weld-2 can pass the CDI 1.1/1.2 CTS at all if the integrator creates its bean archives based on section 12. > > I am guessing CDI 1.1/1.2 cts, the updated version of CDI 1.0(?), is based on section 5. Can someone confirm? The spec needs to be updated to remove the conflict between section 5 and section 12. > > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: > Actually the rules are still not clear. Section 5 and 12 contradict each other. The EE6 RI, JBossAS6 and TomEE and WAS did behave like in section 5 (1 BDA per ee-module) whereas Weld-2 behaves like in section 12. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Saturday, 2 May 2015, 10:13, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > > > Hi Emily, > > The rules) apply to each jar (archive). There is no merging, thus an app can contain three types of archives : > Non bean archives, > Implicit bean archives, > Explicit bean archives. > > Antoine Sabot-Durand > > > Le 1 mai 2015 à 23:03, Emily Jiang <emijiang6(a)googlemail.com&gt; a écrit : > >> >> I have a question on bean archives. >> >> For the jars under web-inf\lib, are they individual bean archives or they should be merged with web-inf\classes files and use the beans.xml under web-inf\ to form one bean archive? >> >> >> If they are merged together to form one bean archive, what will happen if they have their own beans.xml under Meta-inf dir? >> >> Below is the what spec says, but it does not mention the jar under web-inf\lib. The spec should make this situation clear. >> >> In the CDI1.2 spec: >> When determining which archives are bean archives, the container must consider: >> • Library jars, EJB jars or application client jars >> • The WEB-INF/classes directory of a war >> • Directories in the JVM classpath >> The container is not required to support application client jar bean archives. >> A Java EE container is required by the Java EE specification to support Java EE modules. Other >> containers may or may not provide support for war, EJB jar or rar bean archives. >> The beans.xml file must be named: >> • META-INF/beans.xml , or, >> • in a war, WEB-INF/beans.xml or WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/beans.xml. >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks >> Emily >> ================= >> Emily Jiang >> ejiang(a)apache.org >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > > > -- > Thanks > Emily > ================= > Emily Jiang > ejiang(a)apache.org > > > > -- > Thanks > Emily > ================= > Emily Jiang > ejiang(a)apache.org > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.