Re: [cdi-dev] Destroying @Stateless proxies obtained via CDI.current().select()

Hi Arjan, the test attached to WELD-2148 is wrong. We can not inspect an actual SLSB instance. The only thing we could test is that Instance.destroy() does not throw UnsupportedException for SLSB CDI reference.

Martin Dne 11.5.2016 v 10:40 arjan tijms napsal(a): > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for the swift action and the reference. I do have one more > question looking at the test that was added. It now uses this SLSB: > > @Stateless > public class SLSessionBean { > > public void ping(){ > } > > static final AtomicBoolean DESTROYED = new AtomicBoolean(); > > @PreDestroy > public void destroy() { > DESTROYED.set(true); > } > } > > The assertion in the test is that the (a?) SLSB is actually destroyed, > but wasn't the idea that only the internal reference is destroyed, and > the bean just stays in the pool? > > Here it looks like the code intends to destroy a random SLSB instance > from the pool. (random, since I guess an internal reference doesn't > stick to the same actual instance of a SLSB, otherwise you would get > stateful like semantics). > > Or did I miss something? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Hi Arjan, > > I believe it's a Weld bug - you should be able to use > Instance.destroy() to discard an internal SLSB proxy. See also > "Lifecycle of stateless and singleton session beans" [1]. Tomas > Remes created WELD-2148 to track this issue [2]. > > Also the "leak" is an expected behaviour. See for example WELD-920 > [3] discussion. > > Martin > > [1] > http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#stateless_lifecycle > > [2] > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-2148 > > [3] > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-920 > > Dne 10.5.2016 v 17:11 arjan tijms napsal(a): > > Hi, > > Given a simple @Stateless bean: > > @Stateless > public class Foo { > public void bar() {} > } > > Then requesting an instance of this via CDI as follows: > > Foo foo = CDI.current().select(Foo.class).get(); > > Causes a lot of leaked proxy instances (at least on Weld). Now > what I > guess needs to be done is destroying the proxy, taking Antoine's > answer > here as a lead: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28767536/scope-of-stateless-bean > > Only the following throws an UnsupportedOperationException (on > Weld > 2.3.2, haven't tested OWB yet) > > Instance<Foo> fooInstance =CDI.current().select(Foo.class); > Foo foo = fooInstance.get(); > foo.bar(); > fooInstance.destroy(foo); > > The question is, is this how it's supposed to be done via the > spec? > > Implementation wise, what happens in Weld is that the CDI/EJB > proxy > (com.test.Foo$Proxy$_$$_Weld$EnterpriseProxy$) in the following > code > doesn't hit the check for a dependent instance (comments in > capitals > added by me): > > > public void destroy(T instance) { > Preconditions.checkNotNull(instance); > > // check if this is a proxy of a normal-scoped bean > if (instance instanceof ProxyObject) { > > // THIS BRANCH IS TAKEN FOR CDI/EJB PROXY > > ProxyObject proxy = (ProxyObject) instance; > if (proxy.getHandler() instanceof > ProxyMethodHandler) { > ProxyMethodHandler handler = > (ProxyMethodHandler) > proxy.getHandler(); > Bean<?> bean = handler.getBean(); > Context context = > getBeanManager().getContext(bean.getScope()); > if (context instanceof AlterableContext) { > AlterableContext alterableContext = > (AlterableContext) context; > > // CONTEXT IS A DEPENDENTCONTEXTIMPL THAT > THROWS > // UnsupportedOperationException FROM ITS > DESTROY() > METHOD > alterableContext.destroy(bean); > return; > } else { > throw > BeanLogger.LOG.destroyUnsupported(context); > } > } > } > > // check if this is a dependent instance > CreationalContext<? super T> ctx = > getCreationalContext(); > if (ctx instanceof WeldCreationalContext<?>) { > WeldCreationalContext<? super T> weldCtx = > cast(ctx); > > // PROXY REFERENCES ARE KEPT HERE IN A > // "dependentInstances" LIST, AND WOULD BE CLEARED > HERE > // BUT THIS CODE IS NEVER REACHED > weldCtx.destroyDependentInstance(instance); > } > } > > Now I wonder, am I doing something wrong (according to the CDI > spec), or > could this be a bug in the Weld code? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@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. > > > -- > Martin Kouba > Software Engineer > Red Hat, Czech Republic > > > -- Martin Kouba Software Engineer Red Hat, Czech Republic