@Jozef: yes or no but supposing it it leads to the same result.
Typically the case I care here is default tomcat one (+ embedded
tomcat* ones) where session is never serialized so this constraint is
not needed at all. That said having a SPI to add a serializer by bean
(or default one) to avoid this constraint is awesome as well.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
Can you elaborate? If a bean has a normal scope (passivating), it may
need
to be passivated. Are you talking about using a serialization tool that does
not require objects to implement Serializable and using such tool to
passivate a context?
Jozef
On 02/01/2015 04:44 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
+1 to clarify it. All normal scope dont need Serializable constraint - even
session scope - and it makes sense to not respect it in a lot of apps
without preventing these beans to be serializable thans their proxies.
Best IMO is to either remove it or to allow a scope serializer service to be
specified to keep it portable.
Wdyt?
Le 1 févr. 2015 13:36, "Antonio Goncalves" <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>
a
écrit :
>
> Hi all,
>
> I was reading the CDI 1.2 spec and couldn't clearly find the way
> serialization and scopes work. The only explicit sentence I found was :
>
>
> 1.3.1. JSF example
> The @SessionScoped annotation defined in Section 2.4.1, “Built-in scope
> types” is a scope
> type that specifies the lifecycle of instances of Login. Managed beans
> with this scope must be
> serializable.
>
>
> The Weld documentation is a bit more explicit :
>
> 5.2. Built-in scopes
> Managed beans with scope @SessionScoped or @ConversationScoped must be
> serializable, since the container passivates the HTTP session from time to
> time.
>
>
> And in the Java EE Tutorial we find
> (
http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/tutorial/doc/gjbbk.html) :
>
> Beans that use session, application, or conversation scope must be
> serializable, but beans that use request scope do not have to be
> serializable.
>
>
> This even made be doubt about the application scope ?!?
>
>
> Any way, could we clarify this in the CDI spec ?
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>
> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.