that's a good question. In Weld, the request object is captured during request context activation, i.e. during ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() notification and before any filter or servlet is invoked. So wrappers are ignored and the original/first request is used.

But TBH I don't think we can fix this easily as I'm not aware of any portable way to listen for "wrapping actions".

Martin Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): > Hi, > > The CDI spec defines a built-in bean for the type HttpServletRequest. In > 3.8 it says: > > "A servlet container must provide the following built-in beans, all of > which have qualifier @Default: > > a bean with bean type javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, allowing > injection of a reference to the HttpServletRequest" > > An HttpServletRequest however can be wrapped multiple times and by > multiple artefacts. I.e. by a ServerAuthModule, Filter and a > RequestDispatcher. > > The question now is; which version of the HttpServletRequest is supposed > to be injected? > > * The first one in the chain? > * The last one in the chain? > * The current one at a given point in the chain? > > A little bit of experimenting seems to indicate it's now often "one of > the first ones", e.g. the one that happened to be current when e.g. a > ServletRequestListener that initialises a specific CDI implementation is > called. > > I think this is a little confusing, as working with an injected request > can now totally ignore the request wrapping that has been done and break > an application badly. > > Thoughts? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/license > s/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

Hit that issue as well several times. It is more vicious than it looks like IMO cause CDI will *never* get *the* right request for everybody, it is as simple as that. Any part of the app can rely on the wrapper level N (of course N being different for each mentionned parts of the app).

Best CDI can do is to provide the request it has (already the case and cost pretty much nothing) and enable the user to produces very easily its own request from its filter (or equivalent) for its usage IMO - which is IMO already doable but maybe there is another shortcut we can introduce I didnt think about. If you look one step further any web framework built on top of CDI does it and therefore runs in a well known context. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2016-09-08 13:03 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com&gt;: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> that's a good question. In Weld, the request object is captured during >> request context activation, i.e. during ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() >> notification and before any filter or servlet is invoked. So wrappers are >> ignored and the original/first request is used. >> > > Indeed, although do note that some servers (Liberty and WebLogic I think) > send the ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() notification rather > late, and do that after the application already has seen the request and > has had a chance to wrap it. This by itself is a separate problem. So on > these servers, Weld would receive an early request but not necessarily the > earliest. > > >> But TBH I don't think we can fix this easily as I'm not aware of any >> portable way to listen for "wrapping actions". >> > > This would have to happen with Server specific code I guess, just as Weld > now requires an SPI to obtain the current principal for injection. > > You could say that the Servlet container could store the request > "somewhere" on a stack structure, just before it invokes the > ServerAuthModule, Filter, Servlet and anything else I may have forgotten, > and then when control flows back to each Servlet, Filter, etc unwind that > stack. > > At the very least the spec for now should perhaps clarify this? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > >> >> Martin >> >> Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The CDI spec defines a built-in bean for the type HttpServletRequest. In >>> 3.8 it says: >>> >>> "A servlet container must provide the following built-in beans, all of >>> which have qualifier @Default: >>> >>> a bean with bean type javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, allowing >>> injection of a reference to the HttpServletRequest" >>> >>> An HttpServletRequest however can be wrapped multiple times and by >>> multiple artefacts. I.e. by a ServerAuthModule, Filter and a >>> RequestDispatcher. >>> >>> The question now is; which version of the HttpServletRequest is supposed >>> to be injected? >>> >>> * The first one in the chain? >>> * The last one in the chain? >>> * The current one at a given point in the chain? >>> >>> A little bit of experimenting seems to indicate it's now often "one of >>> the first ones", e.g. the one that happened to be current when e.g. a >>> ServletRequestListener that initialises a specific CDI implementation is >>> called. >>> >>> I think this is a little confusing, as working with an injected request >>> can now totally ignore the request wrapping that has been done and break >>> an application badly. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Arjan Tijms >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/license >>> s/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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/license > s/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. >

AFAIK the server propagates by designt he request/response pair so even if there is a way to know which one it is at each moment you still have the issue you don't know what @Inject Request; means. @Inject @Web(FilterX.class) Request; is possible but not sure the real meaning and IMO it breaks the loose coupling of CDI so not sure it does worth to spec-ed it. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2016-09-08 13:31 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com&gt;: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hit that issue as well several times. >> >> It is more vicious than it looks like IMO cause CDI will *never* get >> *the* right request for everybody, it is as simple as that. Any part of the >> app can rely on the wrapper level N (of course N being different for each >> mentionned parts of the app). >> > > What I was thinking, but maybe I'm wrong, is that the application never > "just" wraps the request and uses it for itself. It always passes it to the > container, which then passes it on to the next Filter, Servlet, or > whatever. So at that point the container code has the opportunity to store > the request as being the "current" one. > > E.g. if you do: > > RequestDispatcher dispatcher = servletContext().getRequestDis > patcher(...); > dispatcher.forward(wrap(request), response); > > Then the RequestDispatcher, which is a container class, receives the > wrapped request and can make it available. > > The other way around, eventually every AuthModule, Filter or Servlet has > to be called by the container at some point. E.g. the "protected void > service(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp)" is called by the > container. > > So just before the container invokes the HttpServlet#service method, the > container can store the request, and CDI (via an SPI) can pick it up from > there. > > That way in every context you can always have the *current* request (the > request that's passed in to the last Servlet or Filter call on the stack). > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best CDI can do is to provide the request it has (already the case and >> cost pretty much nothing) and enable the user to produces very easily its >> own request from its filter (or equivalent) for its usage IMO - which is >> IMO already doable but maybe there is another shortcut we can introduce I >> didnt think about. If you look one step further any web framework built on >> top of CDI does it and therefore runs in a well known context. >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber >> <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory >> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> >> >> 2016-09-08 13:03 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com&gt;: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> that's a good question. In Weld, the request object is captured during >>>> request context activation, i.e. during ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() >>>> notification and before any filter or servlet is invoked. So wrappers are >>>> ignored and the original/first request is used. >>>> >>> >>> Indeed, although do note that some servers (Liberty and WebLogic I >>> think) send the ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() >>> notification rather late, and do that after the application already has >>> seen the request and has had a chance to wrap it. This by itself is a >>> separate problem. So on these servers, Weld would receive an early request >>> but not necessarily the earliest. >>> >>> >>>> But TBH I don't think we can fix this easily as I'm not aware of any >>>> portable way to listen for "wrapping actions". >>>> >>> >>> This would have to happen with Server specific code I guess, just as >>> Weld now requires an SPI to obtain the current principal for injection. >>> >>> You could say that the Servlet container could store the request >>> "somewhere" on a stack structure, just before it invokes the >>> ServerAuthModule, Filter, Servlet and anything else I may have forgotten, >>> and then when control flows back to each Servlet, Filter, etc unwind that >>> stack. >>> >>> At the very least the spec for now should perhaps clarify this? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Arjan Tijms >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> The CDI spec defines a built-in bean for the type HttpServletRequest. >>>>> In >>>>> 3.8 it says: >>>>> >>>>> "A servlet container must provide the following built-in beans, all of >>>>> which have qualifier @Default: >>>>> >>>>> a bean with bean type javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, allowing >>>>> injection of a reference to the HttpServletRequest" >>>>> >>>>> An HttpServletRequest however can be wrapped multiple times and by >>>>> multiple artefacts. I.e. by a ServerAuthModule, Filter and a >>>>> RequestDispatcher. >>>>> >>>>> The question now is; which version of the HttpServletRequest is >>>>> supposed >>>>> to be injected? >>>>> >>>>> * The first one in the chain? >>>>> * The last one in the chain? >>>>> * The current one at a given point in the chain? >>>>> >>>>> A little bit of experimenting seems to indicate it's now often "one of >>>>> the first ones", e.g. the one that happened to be current when e.g. a >>>>> ServletRequestListener that initialises a specific CDI implementation >>>>> is >>>>> called. >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a little confusing, as working with an injected >>>>> request >>>>> can now totally ignore the request wrapping that has been done and >>>>> break >>>>> an application badly. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Arjan Tijms >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Martin Kouba >>>> Software Engineer >>>> Red Hat, Czech Republic >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/license >>> s/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. >>> >> >> >

Hi, On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>> wrote: Hit that issue as well several times. It is more vicious than it looks like IMO cause CDI will *never* get *the* right request for everybody, it is as simple as that. Any part of the app can rely on the wrapper level N (of course N being different for each mentionned parts of the app). What I was thinking, but maybe I'm wrong, is that the application never "just" wraps the request and uses it for itself. It always passes it to the container, which then passes it on to the next Filter, Servlet, or whatever. So at that point the container code has the opportunity to store the request as being the "current" one. E.g. if you do: RequestDispatcher dispatcher = servletContext().getRequestDispatcher(...); dispatcher.forward(wrap(request), response); Then the RequestDispatcher, which is a container class, receives the wrapped request and can make it available. The other way around, eventually every AuthModule, Filter or Servlet has to be called by the container at some point. E.g. the "protected void service(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp)" is called by the container. So just before the container invokes the HttpServlet#service method, the container can store the request, and CDI (via an SPI) can pick it up from there. That way in every context you can always have the *current* request (the request that's passed in to the last Servlet or Filter call on the stack). Kind regards, Arjan Tijms Best CDI can do is to provide the request it has (already the case and cost pretty much nothing) and enable the user to produces very easily its own request from its filter (or equivalent) for its usage IMO - which is IMO already doable but maybe there is another shortcut we can introduce I didnt think about. If you look one step further any web framework built on top of CDI does it and therefore runs in a well known context. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2016-09-08 13:03 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com>>: Hi, On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: that's a good question. In Weld, the request object is captured during request context activation, i.e. during ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() notification and before any filter or servlet is invoked. So wrappers are ignored and the original/first request is used. Indeed, although do note that some servers (Liberty and WebLogic I think) send the ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() notification rather late, and do that after the application already has seen the request and has had a chance to wrap it. This by itself is a separate problem. So on these servers, Weld would receive an early request but not necessarily the earliest. But TBH I don't think we can fix this easily as I'm not aware of any portable way to listen for "wrapping actions". This would have to happen with Server specific code I guess, just as Weld now requires an SPI to obtain the current principal for injection. You could say that the Servlet container could store the request "somewhere" on a stack structure, just before it invokes the ServerAuthModule, Filter, Servlet and anything else I may have forgotten, and then when control flows back to each Servlet, Filter, etc unwind that stack. At the very least the spec for now should perhaps clarify this? Kind regards, Arjan Tijms Martin Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): Hi, The CDI spec defines a built-in bean for the type HttpServletRequest. In 3.8 it says: "A servlet container must provide the following built-in beans, all of which have qualifier @Default: a bean with bean type javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, allowing injection of a reference to the HttpServletRequest" An HttpServletRequest however can be wrapped multiple times and by multiple artefacts. I.e. by a ServerAuthModule, Filter and a RequestDispatcher. The question now is; which version of the HttpServletRequest is supposed to be injected? * The first one in the chain? * The last one in the chain? * The current one at a given point in the chain? A little bit of experimenting seems to indicate it's now often "one of the first ones", e.g. the one that happened to be current when e.g. a ServletRequestListener that initialises a specific CDI implementation is called. I think this is a little confusing, as working with an injected request can now totally ignore the request wrapping that has been done and break an application badly. Thoughts? 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 <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 <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 _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <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 <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.

The best solution might be to let the servlet container provide the beans for all the servlet artifacts (HttpServletRequest, HttpSession and ServletContext).

But it's more complicated then it sounds. For example, HttpServletRequest attibutes might be used as backing storage of the request context. So that it cannot simply change... Anyway, I think this problem deserves some attention from both the CDI and the Servlet EG. Martin Dne 8.9.2016 v 13:31 arjan tijms napsal(a): > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hit that issue as well several times. > > It is more vicious than it looks like IMO cause CDI will *never* get > *the* right request for everybody, it is as simple as that. Any part > of the app can rely on the wrapper level N (of course N being > different for each mentionned parts of the app). > > > What I was thinking, but maybe I'm wrong, is that the application never > "just" wraps the request and uses it for itself. It always passes it to > the container, which then passes it on to the next Filter, Servlet, or > whatever. So at that point the container code has the opportunity to > store the request as being the "current" one. > > E.g. if you do: > > RequestDispatcher dispatcher = servletContext().getRequestDis > patcher(...); > dispatcher.forward(wrap(request), response); > > Then the RequestDispatcher, which is a container class, receives the > wrapped request and can make it available. > > The other way around, eventually every AuthModule, Filter or Servlet has > to be called by the container at some point. E.g. the "protected void > service(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp)" is called by > the container. > > So just before the container invokes the HttpServlet#service method, the > container can store the request, and CDI (via an SPI) can pick it up > from there. > > That way in every context you can always have the *current* request (the > request that's passed in to the last Servlet or Filter call on the stack). > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best CDI can do is to provide the request it has (already the case > and cost pretty much nothing) and enable the user to produces very > easily its own request from its filter (or equivalent) for its usage > IMO - which is IMO already doable but maybe there is another > shortcut we can introduce I didnt think about. If you look one step > further any web framework built on top of CDI does it and therefore > runs in a well known context. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber > <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > 2016-09-08 13:03 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com>>: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: > > that's a good question. In Weld, the request object is > captured during request context activation, i.e. during > ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() notification and > before any filter or servlet is invoked. So wrappers are > ignored and the original/first request is used. > > > Indeed, although do note that some servers (Liberty and WebLogic > I think) send the ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() > notification rather late, and do that after the application > already has seen the request and has had a chance to wrap it. > This by itself is a separate problem. So on these servers, Weld > would receive an early request but not necessarily the earliest. > > > But TBH I don't think we can fix this easily as I'm not > aware of any portable way to listen for "wrapping actions". > > > This would have to happen with Server specific code I guess, > just as Weld now requires an SPI to obtain the current principal > for injection. > > You could say that the Servlet container could store the request > "somewhere" on a stack structure, just before it invokes the > ServerAuthModule, Filter, Servlet and anything else I may have > forgotten, and then when control flows back to each Servlet, > Filter, etc unwind that stack. > > At the very least the spec for now should perhaps clarify this? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > Martin > > Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): > > Hi, > > The CDI spec defines a built-in bean for the type > HttpServletRequest. In > 3.8 it says: > > "A servlet container must provide the following built-in > beans, all of > which have qualifier @Default: > > a bean with bean type > javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, allowing > injection of a reference to the HttpServletRequest" > > An HttpServletRequest however can be wrapped multiple > times and by > multiple artefacts. I.e. by a ServerAuthModule, Filter > and a > RequestDispatcher. > > The question now is; which version of the > HttpServletRequest is supposed > to be injected? > > * The first one in the chain? > * The last one in the chain? > * The current one at a given point in the chain? > > A little bit of experimenting seems to indicate it's now > often "one of > the first ones", e.g. the one that happened to be > current when e.g. a > ServletRequestListener that initialises a specific CDI > implementation is > called. > > I think this is a little confusing, as working with an > injected request > can now totally ignore the request wrapping that has > been done and break > an application badly. > > Thoughts? > > 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 > <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 > <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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <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 > <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. > > > >

Hi, On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: The best solution might be to let the servlet container provide the beans for all the servlet artifacts (HttpServletRequest, HttpSession and ServletContext). +100 for that. Several issues were already created for that in the past, but to my understanding it was misunderstood by some in the Servlet EG and subsequently closed. See https://java.net/jira/browse/SERVLET_SPEC-116 Specifically this comment was a little problematic: GW> More over, GW> I'm concerned that by making CDI to servlet mapping a responsibility GW> of the servlet container, then we are going to have to do a GW> container to CDI adaptation for every CDI implementation out there. I think this is missing the key insight that CDI extensions are portable and that it's "just" providing a 1 class extension that adds 3 orso build-in beans.

Kind regards, Arjan Tijms But it's more complicated then it sounds. For example, HttpServletRequest attibutes might be used as backing storage of the request context. So that it cannot simply change... Anyway, I think this problem deserves some attention from both the CDI and the Servlet EG. Martin Dne 8.9.2016 v 13:31 arjan tijms napsal(a): Hi, On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com> <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>>> wrote: Hit that issue as well several times. It is more vicious than it looks like IMO cause CDI will *never* get *the* right request for everybody, it is as simple as that. Any part of the app can rely on the wrapper level N (of course N being different for each mentionned parts of the app). What I was thinking, but maybe I'm wrong, is that the application never "just" wraps the request and uses it for itself. It always passes it to the container, which then passes it on to the next Filter, Servlet, or whatever. So at that point the container code has the opportunity to store the request as being the "current" one. E.g. if you do: RequestDispatcher dispatcher = servletContext().getRequestDispatcher(...); dispatcher.forward(wrap(request), response); Then the RequestDispatcher, which is a container class, receives the wrapped request and can make it available. The other way around, eventually every AuthModule, Filter or Servlet has to be called by the container at some point. E.g. the "protected void service(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp)" is called by the container. So just before the container invokes the HttpServlet#service method, the container can store the request, and CDI (via an SPI) can pick it up from there. That way in every context you can always have the *current* request (the request that's passed in to the last Servlet or Filter call on the stack). Kind regards, Arjan Tijms Best CDI can do is to provide the request it has (already the case and cost pretty much nothing) and enable the user to produces very easily its own request from its filter (or equivalent) for its usage IMO - which is IMO already doable but maybe there is another shortcut we can introduce I didnt think about. If you look one step further any web framework built on top of CDI does it and therefore runs in a well known context. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>> | Old Wordpress Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com>> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau <https://github.com/rmannibucau>> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>> 2016-09-08 13:03 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com> <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com>>>: Hi, On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com> <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>>> wrote: that's a good question. In Weld, the request object is captured during request context activation, i.e. during ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() notification and before any filter or servlet is invoked. So wrappers are ignored and the original/first request is used. Indeed, although do note that some servers (Liberty and WebLogic I think) send the ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() notification rather late, and do that after the application already has seen the request and has had a chance to wrap it. This by itself is a separate problem. So on these servers, Weld would receive an early request but not necessarily the earliest. But TBH I don't think we can fix this easily as I'm not aware of any portable way to listen for "wrapping actions". This would have to happen with Server specific code I guess, just as Weld now requires an SPI to obtain the current principal for injection. You could say that the Servlet container could store the request "somewhere" on a stack structure, just before it invokes the ServerAuthModule, Filter, Servlet and anything else I may have forgotten, and then when control flows back to each Servlet, Filter, etc unwind that stack. At the very least the spec for now should perhaps clarify this? Kind regards, Arjan Tijms Martin Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): Hi, The CDI spec defines a built-in bean for the type HttpServletRequest. In 3.8 it says: "A servlet container must provide the following built-in beans, all of which have qualifier @Default: a bean with bean type javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, allowing injection of a reference to the HttpServletRequest" An HttpServletRequest however can be wrapped multiple times and by multiple artefacts. I.e. by a ServerAuthModule, Filter and a RequestDispatcher. The question now is; which version of the HttpServletRequest is supposed to be injected? * The first one in the chain? * The last one in the chain? * The current one at a given point in the chain? A little bit of experimenting seems to indicate it's now often "one of the first ones", e.g. the one that happened to be current when e.g. a ServletRequestListener that initialises a specific CDI implementation is called. I think this is a little confusing, as working with an injected request can now totally ignore the request wrapping that has been done and break an application badly. Thoughts? Kind regards, Arjan Tijms _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <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 <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html <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 _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <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 <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html <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.

Stuart has a good point about backward compatibility. Servlet impl would have to detect CDI version and skip registration if not 2.0+. I think SERVLET_SPEC-116 should be reopened and the discussion restarted.

> Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > > But it's more complicated then it sounds. For example, > HttpServletRequest attibutes might be used as backing storage of the > request context. So that it cannot simply change... > > Anyway, I think this problem deserves some attention from both the > CDI and the Servlet EG. > > Martin > > Dne 8.9.2016 v 13:31 arjan tijms napsal(a): > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com> > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>>> > > wrote: > > Hit that issue as well several times. > > It is more vicious than it looks like IMO cause CDI will > *never* get > *the* right request for everybody, it is as simple as that. > Any part > of the app can rely on the wrapper level N (of course N being > different for each mentionned parts of the app). > > > What I was thinking, but maybe I'm wrong, is that the > application never > "just" wraps the request and uses it for itself. It always > passes it to > the container, which then passes it on to the next Filter, > Servlet, or > whatever. So at that point the container code has the opportunity > to > store the request as being the "current" one. > > E.g. if you do: > > RequestDispatcher dispatcher = > servletContext().getRequestDispatcher(...); > dispatcher.forward(wrap(request), response); > > Then the RequestDispatcher, which is a container class, receives > the > wrapped request and can make it available. > > The other way around, eventually every AuthModule, Filter or > Servlet has > to be called by the container at some point. E.g. the "protected > void > service(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp)" is > called by > the container. > > So just before the container invokes the HttpServlet#service > method, the > container can store the request, and CDI (via an SPI) can pick it > up > from there. > > That way in every context you can always have the *current* > request (the > request that's passed in to the last Servlet or Filter call on > the stack). > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best CDI can do is to provide the request it has (already > the case > and cost pretty much nothing) and enable the user to > produces very > easily its own request from its filter (or equivalent) for > its usage > IMO - which is IMO already doable but maybe there is another > shortcut we can introduce I didnt think about. If you look > one step > further any web framework built on top of CDI does it and > therefore > runs in a well known context. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> | Blog > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>> | Old Wordpress Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com>> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau > <https://github.com/rmannibucau>> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> | Tomitriber > <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>> > > 2016-09-08 13:03 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms > <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com> > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com> > >>: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Martin Kouba > <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com> > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>>> > > wrote: > > that's a good question. In Weld, the request object is > captured during request context activation, i.e. > during > ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() > notification and > before any filter or servlet is invoked. So wrappers > are > ignored and the original/first request is used. > > > Indeed, although do note that some servers (Liberty and > WebLogic > I think) send the > ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() > notification rather late, and do that after the > application > already has seen the request and has had a chance to > wrap it. > This by itself is a separate problem. So on these > servers, Weld > would receive an early request but not necessarily the > earliest. > > > But TBH I don't think we can fix this easily as I'm > not > aware of any portable way to listen for "wrapping > actions". > > > This would have to happen with Server specific code I > guess, > just as Weld now requires an SPI to obtain the current > principal > for injection. > > You could say that the Servlet container could store the > request > "somewhere" on a stack structure, just before it invokes > the > ServerAuthModule, Filter, Servlet and anything else I > may have > forgotten, and then when control flows back to each > Servlet, > Filter, etc unwind that stack. > > At the very least the spec for now should perhaps > clarify this? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > Martin > > Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): > > Hi, > > The CDI spec defines a built-in bean for the type > HttpServletRequest. In > 3.8 it says: > > "A servlet container must provide the following > built-in > beans, all of > which have qualifier @Default: > > a bean with bean type > javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, allowing > injection of a reference to the > HttpServletRequest" > > An HttpServletRequest however can be wrapped > multiple > times and by > multiple artefacts. I.e. by a ServerAuthModule, > Filter and a > RequestDispatcher. > > The question now is; which version of the > HttpServletRequest is supposed > to be injected? > > * The first one in the chain? > * The last one in the chain? > * The current one at a given point in the chain? > > A little bit of experimenting seems to indicate > it's now > often "one of > the first ones", e.g. the one that happened to be > current when e.g. a > ServletRequestListener that initialises a > specific CDI > implementation is > called. > > I think this is a little confusing, as working > with an > injected request > can now totally ignore the request wrapping that > has > been done and break > an application badly. > > Thoughts? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> > > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <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 > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > <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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <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 > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > <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

Dne 13.9.2016 v 09:46 arjan tijms napsal(a): > p.s. > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Stuart has a good point about backward compatibility. Servlet impl > would have to detect CDI version and skip registration if not 2.0+. > I think SERVLET_SPEC-116 should be reopened and the discussion > restarted. > > > Would you like to re-open that discussion on the Servlet list? Would be > good to have someone from the CDI EG explaining the case I think. Yes, that would be good. Antoine, you could meet some Servlet EG members on J1 and discuss the topic over a beer ;-) > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > > But it's more complicated then it sounds. For example, > HttpServletRequest attibutes might be used as backing > storage of the > request context. So that it cannot simply change... > > Anyway, I think this problem deserves some attention from > both the > CDI and the Servlet EG. > > Martin > > Dne 8.9.2016 v 13:31 arjan tijms napsal(a): > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com> > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>> > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com> <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>>>> > > wrote: > > Hit that issue as well several times. > > It is more vicious than it looks like IMO cause CDI will > *never* get > *the* right request for everybody, it is as simple > as that. > Any part > of the app can rely on the wrapper level N (of > course N being > different for each mentionned parts of the app). > > > What I was thinking, but maybe I'm wrong, is that the > application never > "just" wraps the request and uses it for itself. It always > passes it to > the container, which then passes it on to the next Filter, > Servlet, or > whatever. So at that point the container code has the > opportunity to > store the request as being the "current" one. > > E.g. if you do: > > RequestDispatcher dispatcher = > servletContext().getRequestDispatcher(...); > dispatcher.forward(wrap(request), response); > > Then the RequestDispatcher, which is a container class, > receives the > wrapped request and can make it available. > > The other way around, eventually every AuthModule, Filter or > Servlet has > to be called by the container at some point. E.g. the > "protected > void > service(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse > resp)" is > called by > the container. > > So just before the container invokes the HttpServlet#service > method, the > container can store the request, and CDI (via an SPI) > can pick it up > from there. > > That way in every context you can always have the *current* > request (the > request that's passed in to the last Servlet or Filter > call on > the stack). > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best CDI can do is to provide the request it has > (already > the case > and cost pretty much nothing) and enable the user to > produces very > easily its own request from its filter (or > equivalent) for > its usage > IMO - which is IMO already doable but maybe there is > another > shortcut we can introduce I didnt think about. If > you look > one step > further any web framework built on top of CDI does > it and > therefore > runs in a well known context. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>>> | Blog > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>>> | Old Wordpress Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com>>> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> > <https://github.com/rmannibucau > <https://github.com/rmannibucau>>> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>>> | Tomitriber > <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>>> > > 2016-09-08 13:03 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms > <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com> > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com>> > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com> <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com>>>>: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Martin Kouba > <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com> > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com> <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>>>> > > wrote: > > that's a good question. In Weld, the request > object is > captured during request context activation, > i.e. during > ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() > notification and > before any filter or servlet is invoked. So > wrappers are > ignored and the original/first request is used. > > > Indeed, although do note that some servers > (Liberty and > WebLogic > I think) send the > ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() > notification rather late, and do that after the > application > already has seen the request and has had a chance to > wrap it. > This by itself is a separate problem. So on these > servers, Weld > would receive an early request but not > necessarily the > earliest. > > > But TBH I don't think we can fix this easily > as I'm not > aware of any portable way to listen for > "wrapping > actions". > > > This would have to happen with Server specific > code I guess, > just as Weld now requires an SPI to obtain the > current > principal > for injection. > > You could say that the Servlet container could > store the > request > "somewhere" on a stack structure, just before it > invokes the > ServerAuthModule, Filter, Servlet and anything > else I > may have > forgotten, and then when control flows back to > each Servlet, > Filter, etc unwind that stack. > > At the very least the spec for now should perhaps > clarify this? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > > Martin > > Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): > > Hi, > > The CDI spec defines a built-in bean for > the type > HttpServletRequest. In > 3.8 it says: > > "A servlet container must provide the > following > built-in > beans, all of > which have qualifier @Default: > > a bean with bean type > javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, > allowing > injection of a reference to the > HttpServletRequest" > > An HttpServletRequest however can be wrapped > multiple > times and by > multiple artefacts. I.e. by a > ServerAuthModule, > Filter and a > RequestDispatcher. > > The question now is; which version of the > HttpServletRequest is supposed > to be injected? > > * The first one in the chain? > * The last one in the chain? > * The current one at a given point in > the chain? > > A little bit of experimenting seems to > indicate > it's now > often "one of > the first ones", e.g. the one that > happened to be > current when e.g. a > ServletRequestListener that initialises a > specific CDI > implementation is > called. > > I think this is a little confusing, as > working > with an > injected request > can now totally ignore the request > wrapping that has > been done and break > an application badly. > > Thoughts? > > Kind regards, > Arjan Tijms > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>>> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev>> > > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <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 > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html>> > > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > <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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev>> > > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > <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 > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html>> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > <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 _______________________________________________ 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.

Hi, On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > I'd be more than happy to convince our friends of the Servlet spec to > re-open this ticket. I'll talk with Ed next week. > All the input you can give me to answer their objection are welcome. > The most problematic objection IMHO was this one: GW> More over, GW> I'm concerned that by making CDI to servlet mapping a responsibility GW> of the servlet container, then we are going to have to do a GW> container to CDI adaptation for every CDI implementation out there. Ed called among others this one an "excellent point". But it's simply not true. In no version of what's being asked is there any "container to CDI adaptation for every CDI implementation out there". Extensions are portable in CDI, as you of course know. "CDI to servlet mapping" also makes me wonder if it's fully understood what was being asked, which is essentially a portable extension that registers a Bean<T>. Perhaps helping in taking any further objections away is the fact that one of the oldest, lowest level and arguably most conservative specs out there (JTA), did something quite similar. Implementations provide a small extension that registers an interceptor and a scope. The existence of this extension does not hurt nor influence JTA is situations where CDI is not used. Backwards compatibility (in non EE environments) should be taken into account as Stuart mentioned. I.e. if an application that bundles CDI 1.x is run on a Servlet 4 container. For Java EE environments it's not an issue. Kind regards, Arjan Tijms > > Antoine > > Le mar. 13 sept. 2016 à 15:40, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit : > >> Dne 13.9.2016 v 09:46 arjan tijms napsal(a): >> > p.s. >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com >> > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: >> > >> > Stuart has a good point about backward compatibility. Servlet impl >> > would have to detect CDI version and skip registration if not 2.0+. >> > I think SERVLET_SPEC-116 should be reopened and the discussion >> > restarted. >> > >> > >> > Would you like to re-open that discussion on the Servlet list? Would be >> > good to have someone from the CDI EG explaining the case I think. >> >> Yes, that would be good. Antoine, you could meet some Servlet EG members >> on J1 and discuss the topic over a beer ;-) >> >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Arjan Tijms >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Arjan Tijms >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > But it's more complicated then it sounds. For example, >> > HttpServletRequest attibutes might be used as backing >> > storage of the >> > request context. So that it cannot simply change... >> > >> > Anyway, I think this problem deserves some attention from >> > both the >> > CDI and the Servlet EG. >> > >> > Martin >> > >> > Dne 8.9.2016 v 13:31 arjan tijms napsal(a): >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com> >> > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>> >> > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com >> > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com> <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com >> > <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>>>> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hit that issue as well several times. >> > >> > It is more vicious than it looks like IMO cause >> CDI will >> > *never* get >> > *the* right request for everybody, it is as simple >> > as that. >> > Any part >> > of the app can rely on the wrapper level N (of >> > course N being >> > different for each mentionned parts of the app). >> > >> > >> > What I was thinking, but maybe I'm wrong, is that the >> > application never >> > "just" wraps the request and uses it for itself. It >> always >> > passes it to >> > the container, which then passes it on to the next >> Filter, >> > Servlet, or >> > whatever. So at that point the container code has the >> > opportunity to >> > store the request as being the "current" one. >> > >> > E.g. if you do: >> > >> > RequestDispatcher dispatcher = >> > servletContext().getRequestDispatcher(...); >> > dispatcher.forward(wrap(request), response); >> > >> > Then the RequestDispatcher, which is a container class, >> > receives the >> > wrapped request and can make it available. >> > >> > The other way around, eventually every AuthModule, >> Filter or >> > Servlet has >> > to be called by the container at some point. E.g. the >> > "protected >> > void >> > service(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse >> > resp)" is >> > called by >> > the container. >> > >> > So just before the container invokes the >> HttpServlet#service >> > method, the >> > container can store the request, and CDI (via an SPI) >> > can pick it up >> > from there. >> > >> > That way in every context you can always have the >> *current* >> > request (the >> > request that's passed in to the last Servlet or Filter >> > call on >> > the stack). >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Arjan Tijms >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Best CDI can do is to provide the request it has >> > (already >> > the case >> > and cost pretty much nothing) and enable the user >> to >> > produces very >> > easily its own request from its filter (or >> > equivalent) for >> > its usage >> > IMO - which is IMO already doable but maybe there >> is >> > another >> > shortcut we can introduce I didnt think about. If >> > you look >> > one step >> > further any web framework built on top of CDI does >> > it and >> > therefore >> > runs in a well known context. >> > >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau >> > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> >> > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau >> > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>>> | Blog >> > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com >> > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> >> > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com >> > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>>> | Old Wordpress Blog >> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> >> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com>>> | Github >> > <https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> >> > <https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > <https://github.com/rmannibucau>>> | LinkedIn >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>>> | Tomitriber >> > <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory >> > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com >> > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> >> > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com >> > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>>> >> > >> > 2016-09-08 13:03 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms >> > <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com> >> > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com>> >> > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com >> > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com> <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com >> > <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com>>>>: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Martin Kouba >> > <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com> >> > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> >> > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com >> > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com> <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com >> > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>>>> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > that's a good question. In Weld, the >> request >> > object is >> > captured during request context activation, >> > i.e. during >> > ServletRequestListener.reques >> tInitialized() >> > notification and >> > before any filter or servlet is invoked. So >> > wrappers are >> > ignored and the original/first request is >> used. >> > >> > >> > Indeed, although do note that some servers >> > (Liberty and >> > WebLogic >> > I think) send the >> > ServletRequestListener.requestInitialized() >> > notification rather late, and do that after the >> > application >> > already has seen the request and has had a >> chance to >> > wrap it. >> > This by itself is a separate problem. So on >> these >> > servers, Weld >> > would receive an early request but not >> > necessarily the >> > earliest. >> > >> > >> > But TBH I don't think we can fix this >> easily >> > as I'm not >> > aware of any portable way to listen for >> > "wrapping >> > actions". >> > >> > >> > This would have to happen with Server specific >> > code I guess, >> > just as Weld now requires an SPI to obtain the >> > current >> > principal >> > for injection. >> > >> > You could say that the Servlet container could >> > store the >> > request >> > "somewhere" on a stack structure, just before >> it >> > invokes the >> > ServerAuthModule, Filter, Servlet and anything >> > else I >> > may have >> > forgotten, and then when control flows back to >> > each Servlet, >> > Filter, etc unwind that stack. >> > >> > At the very least the spec for now should >> perhaps >> > clarify this? >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Arjan Tijms >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Martin >> > >> > Dne 8.9.2016 v 11:02 arjan tijms napsal(a): >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > The CDI spec defines a built-in bean >> for >> > the type >> > HttpServletRequest. In >> > 3.8 it says: >> > >> > "A servlet container must provide the >> > following >> > built-in >> > beans, all of >> > which have qualifier @Default: >> > >> > a bean with bean type >> > javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, >> > allowing >> > injection of a reference to the >> > HttpServletRequest" >> > >> > An HttpServletRequest however can be >> wrapped >> > multiple >> > times and by >> > multiple artefacts. I.e. by a >> > ServerAuthModule, >> > Filter and a >> > RequestDispatcher. >> > >> > The question now is; which version of >> the >> > HttpServletRequest is supposed >> > to be injected? >> > >> > * The first one in the chain? >> > * The last one in the chain? >> > * The current one at a given point in >> > the chain? >> > >> > A little bit of experimenting seems to >> > indicate >> > it's now >> > often "one of >> > the first ones", e.g. the one that >> > happened to be >> > current when e.g. a >> > ServletRequestListener that >> initialises a >> > specific CDI >> > implementation is >> > called. >> > >> > I think this is a little confusing, as >> > working >> > with an >> > injected request >> > can now totally ignore the request >> > wrapping that has >> > been done and break >> > an application badly. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Arjan Tijms >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > cdi-dev mailing list >> > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.or >> g> >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>>> >> > >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev>> >> > >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > <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 >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html>> >> > >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html >> > <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 >> > >> > >> > >> > _____________________________ >> __________________ >> > cdi-dev mailing list >> > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> <mailto: >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> <mailto: >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>>> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailm >> an/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev>> >> > >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > <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/licens >> es/LICENSE-2.0.html >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html>> >> > <http://www.apache.org/licens >> es/LICENSE-2.0.html >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> >> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html >> > <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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/license >> s/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.