[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-741?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Harald Wellmann updated CDI-741:
--------------------------------
Description:
According to Section 12.1,
{quote}An archive which contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean
archive.
{quote}
According to Section 11.5,
{quote} An extension is a service provider of the service
javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension declared in META-INF/services
{quote}
Conclusion:
An archive containing a class implementing {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension}} but
not declaring this class in {{META-INF/services}} does not contain an extension.
So if this archive contains a class with a bean-defining annotation and no {{beans.xml}},
then it is a bean archive.
The TCK is missing a test for this scenario (archive with extension class but no service
registration), it only has a test for the more obvious case of an archive with extension
class *and* service registration.
If my interpretation is correct, then WildFly 15 has a bug, since it disqualifies any
archive containing an {{Extension}} class, regardless of the service registration.
Side note:
It would be helpful for readers looking for the exact definition of extensions to move the
sentence quoted above from Section 11.5 to the introductory paragraph of Section 11.
was:
According to Section 12.1,
{quote}An archive which contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean
archive.
{quote}
According to Section 11.5,
{quote} An extension is a service provider of the service
javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension declared in META-INF/services
{quote}
Conclusion:
An archive containing a class implementing {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension}} but
not declaring this class in {{META-INF/services}} does not contain an extension.
So if this archive contains a class with a bean-defining annotation and no {{beans.xml}},
then it is a bean archive.
The TCK is missing a test for this scenario (archive with extension class but no service
registration), it only has a test for the more obvious case of an archive with extension
class *and* service registration.
If my interpretation is correct, then WildFly 15 has a bug, since it disqualifies any
archive containing an `Extension` class, regardless of the service registration.
Side note:
It would be helpful for readers looking for the exact definition of extensions to move the
sentence quoted above from Section 11.5 to the introductory paragraph of Section 11.
Clarify: "archive which contains an extension"
----------------------------------------------
Key: CDI-741
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-741
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Components: Portable Extensions
Affects Versions: 2.0 .Final
Reporter: Harald Wellmann
Priority: Major
According to Section 12.1,
{quote}An archive which contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean
archive.
{quote}
According to Section 11.5,
{quote} An extension is a service provider of the service
javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension declared in META-INF/services
{quote}
Conclusion:
An archive containing a class implementing {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension}} but
not declaring this class in {{META-INF/services}} does not contain an extension.
So if this archive contains a class with a bean-defining annotation and no {{beans.xml}},
then it is a bean archive.
The TCK is missing a test for this scenario (archive with extension class but no service
registration), it only has a test for the more obvious case of an archive with extension
class *and* service registration.
If my interpretation is correct, then WildFly 15 has a bug, since it disqualifies any
archive containing an {{Extension}} class, regardless of the service registration.
Side note:
It would be helpful for readers looking for the exact definition of extensions to move
the sentence quoted above from Section 11.5 to the introductory paragraph of Section 11.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)