I always use the 3 terms
* Managed Bean
* Contextual Instance
* Contextual Reference
'bean' is pretty ambiguous, but CDI Managed Bean (*) (in capital letters) is clear
imo.
LieGrue,
strub
(*) I still hope all other Manged Beans should be gone in EE7...
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon(a)oracle.com>
To: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
Cc: Edward Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com>; cdi-dev
<cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Sorting out the "bean name" mess
Pete Muir wrote on 09/06/2012 07:04 AM:
> All
>
>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-250
>
> The way a bean's name is referred to in the CDI spec is somewhat
disjointed.
>
> I think this occurred because the CDI spec was written with the term
"bean name", but it got changed due to concerns over confusion with:
>
> * JSF managed beans name
> * @ManagedBean name
> * EJB bean names
>
> As a result, we now have a mix of "bean name", "bean EL
name", and "name", which is ultimately just confusing.
>
> I would like to standardize on a single term, and I would propose
"bean name".
>
> Thoughts?
>
I agree with standardizing on a single term.
Where can I use these names? My understanding is that they're only or
mostly used in EL expressions, thus "bean EL name".
Can I inject a bean by name? That would motivate the more general
"bean name".
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev