On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
CDI not sure but CDI implementations can for sure find the instances,
said I hope it will be forbidden and that only scopes linked the a message
context (ie app scoped, maybe singleton, dependent and jms scopes would be
This was one of my biggest questions when reading the proposal. It now
explicitly mentions @RequestScoped beans
With the proposed mechanism where a bean instance itself (invisibly)
connects to the location from where the JMS messages originate, this
would be somewhat doable, but it's not exactly how CDI events normally
I am not yet clear is request scoped should be supported or if we
need a wider scope because of JMS protocol)
That's a good question.
> Or is this not how the feature is intended?
> Kind regards,
> Arjan Tijms
> > For client side having a custom qualifier supporting placeholding - a
> > bit
> > like jbatch for system properties - would be nice and would allow to
> > skip
> > JNDI which means enabling SE usage as well.
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
> > 2015-08-25 15:51 GMT+02:00 Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin(a)oracle.com>:
> >> On 24/08/2015 21:24, John D. Ament wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Nigel!
> >> >
> >> > Glad to hear from you. Was wondering, is there a way to manually
> >> > register listeners?
> >> The current proposal is is for the bean to start listening just as soon
> >> as
> >> it is created (by CDI), and for it to stop
> >> listening just before it is destroyed (by CDI).
> >> As you suggesting that CDI would create the listener, but the
> >> application
> >> would call some method to tell it to start
> >> listening? or did you have something else in mind?
> >> > It would be great if this could
> >> > be leveraged in a CDI SE environment as well as EE environment.
> >> I see that work is underway for CDI 2.0 to define how CDI might work in
> >> a
> >> Java SE environment. I don't see why a similar
> >> portable extension could not be created for use in Java SE. Since there
> >> would be no need to support Java EE behaviour
> >> such as transactions this could be built directly on top of the JMS
> >> provider's Java SE client. No need to use a resource
> >> adapter. However since the @JMSListener and @JMSConnectionFactory
> >> annotations use JNDI there would be a need to be a way
> >> to specify which JNDI InitialContext to use. I'm not proposing any of
> >> this
> >> at the moment, but it might perhaps be
> >> something that we (the JMS expert group) could consider later on as a
> >> optional part of JMS 2.1.
> >> There's also the Java EE application client to consider.
> >> Nigel
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.