On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:29, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 12/21/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi! > > I just came across this little sentence in the spec > > > > 11.5.6 "If any ProcessAnnotatedType method is called outside of the observer method invocation, an IllegalStateException is thrown." > > > I don't believe such a limitation helps much. What about extensions who do a setAnnotatedType and change this instance in a later phase? Such as? > We have no whatever chance to prevent this anyway. We can prevent that by throwing the exception, rather than silently ignoring that the extension is doing something wrong. > > So why not just say that if a CDI System Event gets modified outside of the method it gets injected into then non portable behaviour results. > > LieGrue, > strub > _______________________________________________ > 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.

No you can NOT I fear. How do you make sure that the AnnotatedType someone added doesn't get changed later? We have no whatever control over it. If some programmer like to make it mutable, well then it is that way and we have no chance to detect that :( Imo the only thing we can do is to point programmers to the fact that this is stupid -> non-portable behaviour.

LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:29, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 12/21/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I just came across this little sentence in the spec >> >> >> >> 11.5.6 "If any ProcessAnnotatedType method is called outside of the > observer method invocation, an IllegalStateException is thrown." >> >> I don't believe such a limitation helps much. What about extensions who > do a setAnnotatedType and change this instance in a later phase? > Such as? >> We have no whatever chance to prevent this anyway. > We can prevent that by throwing the exception, rather than silently > ignoring that the extension is doing something wrong. > >> So why not just say that if a CDI System Event gets modified outside of the > method it gets injected into then non portable behaviour results. >> LieGrue, >> strub >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >

well, it's just the tip of the iceberg. It would be way easier to just define any 'modification' as non-portable. That would be much more precise and easier as well. And really covers al the edge cases as well. LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:42, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On 12/22/2014 09:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> No you can NOT I fear. >> >> How do you make sure that the AnnotatedType someone added doesn't get > changed later? We have no whatever control over it. If some programmer like to > make it mutable, well then it is that way and we have no chance to detect that > :( >> Imo the only thing we can do is to point programmers to the fact that this > is stupid -> non-portable behaviour. > Correct. This is stupid. But allowing setAnnotatedType() to be called > anytime does not help this at all. > > The fact that we throw the exception on setAnnotatedType() prevents a > class of bad things from happening. At the same time it does not prevent > the other one that you mentioned. The fact that we cannot prevent all of > them does not mean that we should not try to prevent those we can. > >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:29, Jozef Hartinger > <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> On 12/21/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> I just came across this little sentence in the spec >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 11.5.6 "If any ProcessAnnotatedType method is called outside > of the >>> observer method invocation, an IllegalStateException is thrown." >>>> >>>> I don't believe such a limitation helps much. What about > extensions who >>> do a setAnnotatedType and change this instance in a later phase? >>> Such as? >>>> We have no whatever chance to prevent this anyway. >>> We can prevent that by throwing the exception, rather than silently >>> ignoring that the extension is doing something wrong. >>> >>>> So why not just say that if a CDI System Event gets modified > outside of the >>> method it gets injected into then non portable behaviour results. >>>> LieGrue, >>>> strub >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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.

On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:56, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Yes, we should explicitly define those other cases as non-portable if it has not been done yet. On 12/22/2014 09:49 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > well, it's just the tip of the iceberg. It would be way easier to just define any 'modification' as non-portable. That would be much more precise and easier as well. And really covers al the edge cases as well. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > >> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:42, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> On 12/22/2014 09:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>> No you can NOT I fear. >>> >>> How do you make sure that the AnnotatedType someone added doesn't get >> changed later? We have no whatever control over it. If some programmer like to >> make it mutable, well then it is that way and we have no chance to detect that >> :( >>> Imo the only thing we can do is to point programmers to the fact that this >> is stupid -> non-portable behaviour. >> Correct. This is stupid. But allowing setAnnotatedType() to be called >> anytime does not help this at all. >> >> The fact that we throw the exception on setAnnotatedType() prevents a >> class of bad things from happening. At the same time it does not prevent >> the other one that you mentioned. The fact that we cannot prevent all of >> them does not mean that we should not try to prevent those we can. >> >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:29, Jozef Hartinger >> <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> On 12/21/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> I just came across this little sentence in the spec >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 11.5.6 "If any ProcessAnnotatedType method is called outside >> of the >>>> observer method invocation, an IllegalStateException is thrown." >>>>> I don't believe such a limitation helps much. What about >> extensions who >>>> do a setAnnotatedType and change this instance in a later phase? >>>> Such as? >>>>> We have no whatever chance to prevent this anyway. >>>> We can prevent that by throwing the exception, rather than silently >>>> ignoring that the extension is doing something wrong. >>>> >>>>> So why not just say that if a CDI System Event gets modified >> outside of the >>>> method it gets injected into then non portable behaviour results. >>>>> LieGrue, >>>>> strub >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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. >>>>

Le 22 déc. 2014 à 09:59, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; a écrit : While we are at it: This is actually true for ALL System Events, right? So we should not define it in PAT but somewhere more general imo. LieGrue, strub >> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:56, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> Yes, we should explicitly define those other cases as non-portable if it > has not been done yet. > >> On 12/22/2014 09:49 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> well, it's just the tip of the iceberg. It would be way easier to just > define any 'modification' as non-portable. That would be much more > precise and easier as well. And really covers al the edge cases as well. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:42, Jozef Hartinger > <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> On 12/22/2014 09:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>> No you can NOT I fear. >>>> >>>> How do you make sure that the AnnotatedType someone added > doesn't get >>> changed later? We have no whatever control over it. If some programmer > like to >>> make it mutable, well then it is that way and we have no chance to > detect that >>> :( >>>> Imo the only thing we can do is to point programmers to the fact > that this >>> is stupid -> non-portable behaviour. >>> Correct. This is stupid. But allowing setAnnotatedType() to be called >>> anytime does not help this at all. >>> >>> The fact that we throw the exception on setAnnotatedType() prevents a >>> class of bad things from happening. At the same time it does not > prevent >>> the other one that you mentioned. The fact that we cannot prevent all > of >>> them does not mean that we should not try to prevent those we can. >>> >>>> >>>> LieGrue, >>>> strub >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:29, Jozef Hartinger >>> <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> On 12/21/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>>>> Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>> I just came across this little sentence in the spec >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 11.5.6 "If any ProcessAnnotatedType method is > called outside >>> of the >>>>> observer method invocation, an IllegalStateException is > thrown." >>>>>> I don't believe such a limitation helps much. What > about >>> extensions who >>>>> do a setAnnotatedType and change this instance in a later > phase? >>>>> Such as? >>>>>> We have no whatever chance to prevent this anyway. >>>>> We can prevent that by throwing the exception, rather than > silently >>>>> ignoring that the extension is doing something wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> So why not just say that if a CDI System Event gets > modified >>> outside of the >>>>> method it gets injected into then non portable behaviour > results. >>>>>> LieGrue, >>>>>> strub >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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.