Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Von: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; Betreff: Aw: [cdi-dev] Extensions and spec-related observer method injection points question Datum: 19. Februar 2017 um 21:05:30 MEZ An: Matej Novotny <manovotn(a)redhat.com&gt; > > While you cannot do this, you can still get hold of BeanManager and use it to resolve your bean. No, you cannot. At least not before AfterBeanValidation. LieGrue, strub > Am 17.02.2017 um 07:08 schrieb Matej Novotny <manovotn(a)redhat.com&gt;: > > Hi, comment inline. > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Laird Nelson" <ljnelson(a)gmail.com&gt; >> To: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:11:41 PM >> Subject: [cdi-dev] Extensions and spec-related observer method injection points question >> >> This section ( >> http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/2.0-PFD/cdi-spec.html#init_events ) says: "If >> other beans [other than the BeanManager ] are injected into an [portable] >> extension’s observer methods, non-portable behavior results." >> >> Rephrased: a portable extension's observer methods must have a minimum of one >> parameter (the event being observed) and a maximum of two parameters (that >> plus the BeanManager ), and none other if you want to stay truly portable. > > That's correct interpretation. > >> For true container lifecycle events, I understand this (you don't have beans >> to inject yet). But given that a bean must be provided by the container for >> a portable extension ( >> http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/2.0-PFD/cdi-spec.html#init_events ), wouldn't >> it be reasonable to permit extra injection points in a portable extension's >> non -container-lifecycle-event-observing observer methods? >> >> Concretely, I'd like to do this: >> >> // In my portable extension >> private static final void doSomethingAtStartup(@Observes >> @Initialized(ApplicationScoped.class) final Object event, final Frobnicator >> someBean) { >> someBean.doSomething(); >> } > > While you cannot do this, you can still get hold of BeanManager and use it to resolve your bean. > >> >> ...but that would seem to be in violation of the specification. Could someone >> kindly explain why? > > Not really sure, perhaps Martin or Antoine can share the details. > But I would say this could create quite some confusion if in some observer you could inject certain beans and in others you couldn't. > Even in your sample, you can only inject AppScoped beans, so imagine you do such observer for, say, SessionScoped, what can you inject there? > SessionScoped for sure, how about Req? Conversation? > >> >> Thanks, >> Best, >> Laird >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.