Re: [cdi-dev] TCK and spec question

Le 22 déc. 2014 à 09:59, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; a écrit : While we are at it: This is actually true for ALL System Events, right? So we should not define it in PAT but somewhere more general imo. LieGrue, strub >> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:56, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> Yes, we should explicitly define those other cases as non-portable if it > has not been done yet. > >> On 12/22/2014 09:49 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> well, it's just the tip of the iceberg. It would be way easier to just > define any 'modification' as non-portable. That would be much more > precise and easier as well. And really covers al the edge cases as well. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:42, Jozef Hartinger > <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> On 12/22/2014 09:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>> No you can NOT I fear. >>>> >>>> How do you make sure that the AnnotatedType someone added > doesn't get >>> changed later? We have no whatever control over it. If some programmer > like to >>> make it mutable, well then it is that way and we have no chance to > detect that >>> :( >>>> Imo the only thing we can do is to point programmers to the fact > that this >>> is stupid -> non-portable behaviour. >>> Correct. This is stupid. But allowing setAnnotatedType() to be called >>> anytime does not help this at all. >>> >>> The fact that we throw the exception on setAnnotatedType() prevents a >>> class of bad things from happening. At the same time it does not > prevent >>> the other one that you mentioned. The fact that we cannot prevent all > of >>> them does not mean that we should not try to prevent those we can. >>> >>>> >>>> LieGrue, >>>> strub >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:29, Jozef Hartinger >>> <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> On 12/21/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>>>> Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>> I just came across this little sentence in the spec >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 11.5.6 "If any ProcessAnnotatedType method is > called outside >>> of the >>>>> observer method invocation, an IllegalStateException is > thrown." >>>>>> I don't believe such a limitation helps much. What > about >>> extensions who >>>>> do a setAnnotatedType and change this instance in a later > phase? >>>>> Such as? >>>>>> We have no whatever chance to prevent this anyway. >>>>> We can prevent that by throwing the exception, rather than > silently >>>>> ignoring that the extension is doing something wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> So why not just say that if a CDI System Event gets > modified >>> outside of the >>>>> method it gets injected into then non portable behaviour > results. >>>>>> 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.