7:42 a.m.
if the intention was not to ignore the beans in-between,
then the rule for indirect specialization seems quite redundant to me.
Exactly. Also please note that we usually define the things which shall work and do not
define all things which are excluded. And if we do, then we define '... a
DeploymentError has to be thrown' or similar.
The complete indirect specialization section would be totally redundant and thus useless
if leaving out all 'intermediate' @Specialized beans would not have been
intended.
If it would have been intended as 'transitive' then this could have been written
much easier.
Please also note that the TCK for CDI-1.0 did NOT cover this in that way and also old Weld
implementations did not behave that way.
To me this seems to be purely an introduction of Weld-2.0 but it's neither backed by
the spec nor by the old TCK...
So please remove the respective tests from the TCK and let's file this into
non-portable. It's not ok to have a TCK test for things which are neither backed by
the spec nor did work that way in various CDI-1.0 implementations (including Weld
itself).
LieGrue,
strub
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3/6/14, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Challenge TCK test for indirect specialization rules
To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>, cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Tuesday, 3 June, 2014, 12:05
The way I read it is that
the "indirect specialization" part is just a
different way of saying that specialization is
transitive. From that it
is apparent that
you cannot just leave out the bean in the middle.
Jozef
On
06/03/2014 10:37 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Hi!
The question is about
org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.inheritance.specialization.simple.SimpleBeanSpecializationTest#testSpecializingBeanHasNameOfSpecializedBean
and a few other tests in there.
Imo they directly
contradict 4.3.1 of the spec:
-------
Formally, a
bean X is said to specialize another bean Y if either:
• X directly specializes Y, or
• a bean Z exists, such that X directly
specializes Z and Z specializes Y. Then X
will inherit the
qualifiers and bean name of Y:
• the
qualifiers of X include all qualifiers of Y, together
with
all qualifiers declared explicitly by X, and
• if Y has a bean name, the bean name of
X is the same as the
bean name of Y.
It explicitly doesn't
say that 'all @Specializes up in
the chain' do
account for the name and qualifiers.
There was imo
also a test for it in the CDI-1.0 TCK which we
did
successfully pass. But obviously this got rewritten to a
different behavior.