Re: [cdi-dev] Fw: Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.

From: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>; Cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Cc: Edward Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 10:54 Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Fw: Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name. I think further action is needed on this. Now that it has been confirmed that "javax.enterprise.context.conversation" itself is not a valid EL name we should either: A) Require all CDI implementations to adapt the property-based approach which allows this to be implemented portably (as Weld does) B) Declare publicly that although the CDI spec declares the given name, it is a bug and applications should not use the name. (What about compatibility with existing applications?) Jozef On 01/08/2015 09:27 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Dear CDI fellows! > > I've received an answer regarding our EL question from the EL Spec Lead. > > Ed, thanks for helping us! > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > >> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 23:14, Edward Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com&gt; wrote: >>> Hello Mark, >> To close this out, no, "." is not valid in an EL name. An EL name >> must >> be a java identifier. I'm told this was discussed by Pete a long time >> ago in the EL 3.0 EG. >> >> Ed >> >> -- >> | edward.burns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017 >> | 42 days til DevNexus 2015 >> | 52 days til JavaLand 2015 >> | 62 days til CONFESS 2015 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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.