Re: [cdi-dev] where is defined javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id?

Well it is quite explicit: 1.6 Operators [] and . The EL follows ECMAScript in unifying the treatment of the . and [] operators. expr-a.identifier-b is equivalent to expr-a[“identifier-b”]; that is, the identifier identifier-b is used to construct a literal whose value is the identifier, and then the [] operator is used with that value. so javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id = javax["enterprise"]["context"]["conversation"]["id"]. If then you follow the EL resolution agorithm there is no way which can match our name case -

follow all its rules. The best would be to add a "cdi" object (whatever name it is while it is compliant) and to allow: ${cdi['javax.enterprise.context.conversation']} syntax, exactly like requestScope can be used to get javax.servlet.* properties.

Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2015-01-06 12:46 GMT+01:00 Tomas Remes <tremes(a)redhat.com&gt;: > > Well I am not sure. Reading EL spec and ECMA script I can't see any wording which will imply a must to escape or quote the variable in this case. I think the current usage is not forbidden anywhere. I tried to escape or quote the part of variable but it didn't work. The result was considered as String instance or I got ParserException. > > Tom > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jozef Hartinger" <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt;, "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament(a)gmail.com&gt;, "Tomas Remes" <tremes(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:19:16 PM > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] where is defined javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id? > > > On 01/05/2015 10:09 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>> The spec also only says that the BEAN must have this very name and not that >>>> the bean must be accessible by EL. >>> Given what the name is for in CDI this can be implied. >> >> well, but it's not up to the CDI impl to do this correctly. > No, my point was that if a bean is given a name it implies that this > bean should be accessible via EL. >> >> >>>> If we would really require this and the EL specification doesn't >>>> support it, then the CDI spec would contradict the EL spec, right? >>> No, it would mean that the name should be placed within quotes when >>> accessing the conversation bean from EL. >> >> The question is whether it really is defined in the EL spec that way. And further if the EL TCK does test this or if this is non-portable. The TCK test doesn't use escaping for what I saw. So this test is not ok. > Right, the TCK test should be fixed to escape the name properly. > >> >> >> Why didn't we simply use underscores instead of dots? :) >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.