Re: [cdi-dev] Inconsistency in the spec regarding remote EJBs

Yes Tomas I agree, I think it should be detected automatically by the container so it's good to update 10.4.2 accordingly. The assertion you mentioned match this test in the TCK: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... It's more straight forward to work there IMO. Romain, I don't understand when you write "That said not being able to fix it in EJB spec". It's not an EJB spec issue but a CDI issue. Antoine Le jeu. 16 juil. 2015 à 16:05, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : > hmm, this always has been an issue for me since CDI shouldnt know about > these methods at all so how could it specify anything? That said not being > able to fix it in EJB spec I tend to agree with Tomas. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber > <http://www.tomitribe.com> > > 2015-07-16 15:56 GMT+02:00 Tomas Remes <tremes(a)redhat.com&gt;: > >> >> Hi, >> >> I agree. Shouldn't we specify what happens in opposite case? Or maybe >> better to update following in "10.4.2. Declaring an observer method" as >> well: >> >> "If a non-static method of a session bean class has a parameter >> annotated @Observes, and the method is not a business method of the EJB, >> the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a >> definition error." >> >> Tom >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Antoine Sabot-Durand" <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; >> To: "cdi-dev" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 3:25:40 PM >> Subject: [cdi-dev] Inconsistency in the spec regarding remote EJBs >> >> Hi guys, >> >> >> Bill Shanon, just pointed me to this test in TCK: >> >> >> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... >> >> It tests the following assertion: >> >> "If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a >> business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class.” >> >> The EJB containing the observers for the test is: >> >> >> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... >> >> The EJB contains one business method coming from a local interface, one >> from a remote and one static method. the 3 are observers methods >> >> The test expects that the remote business observer method should be >> called. >> >> Here we have an inconsistency IMO. By doing this we are violating rules >> the CDI spec regarding the fact that remote EJBs are not CDI beans. And we >> are calling this remote business method passing the event payload by >> reference and not by value which violates EJB specification regarding >> remote EJB. >> >> I suggest that we change the assertion to: >> >> If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a >> local business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class. >> >> and the TCK accordingly. Any thought ? >> >> Antoine >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > >