Hi, I agree. Shouldn't we specify what happens in opposite case? Or maybe better to update following in "10.4.2. Declaring an observer method" as well: "If a non-static method of a session bean class has a parameter annotated @Observes, and the method is not a business method of the EJB, the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error." Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antoine Sabot-Durand" <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; To: "cdi-dev" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 3:25:40 PM Subject: [cdi-dev] Inconsistency in the spec regarding remote EJBs Hi guys, Bill Shanon, just pointed me to this test in TCK: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... It tests the following assertion: "If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class.” The EJB containing the observers for the test is: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... The EJB contains one business method coming from a local interface, one from a remote and one static method. the 3 are observers methods The test expects that the remote business observer method should be called. Here we have an inconsistency IMO. By doing this we are violating rules the CDI spec regarding the fact that remote EJBs are not CDI beans. And we are calling this remote business method passing the event payload by reference and not by value which violates EJB specification regarding remote EJB. I suggest that we change the assertion to: If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a local business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class. and the TCK accordingly. Any thought ? Antoine _______________________________________________ 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.

Yes Tomas I agree, I think it should be detected automatically by the container so it's good to update 10.4.2 accordingly. The assertion you mentioned match this test in the TCK: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... It's more straight forward to work there IMO. Romain, I don't understand when you write "That said not being able to fix it in EJB spec". It's not an EJB spec issue but a CDI issue. Antoine Le jeu. 16 juil. 2015 à 16:05, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : > hmm, this always has been an issue for me since CDI shouldnt know about > these methods at all so how could it specify anything? That said not being > able to fix it in EJB spec I tend to agree with Tomas. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber > <http://www.tomitribe.com> > > 2015-07-16 15:56 GMT+02:00 Tomas Remes <tremes(a)redhat.com&gt;: > >> >> Hi, >> >> I agree. Shouldn't we specify what happens in opposite case? Or maybe >> better to update following in "10.4.2. Declaring an observer method" as >> well: >> >> "If a non-static method of a session bean class has a parameter >> annotated @Observes, and the method is not a business method of the EJB, >> the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a >> definition error." >> >> Tom >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Antoine Sabot-Durand" <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; >> To: "cdi-dev" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 3:25:40 PM >> Subject: [cdi-dev] Inconsistency in the spec regarding remote EJBs >> >> Hi guys, >> >> >> Bill Shanon, just pointed me to this test in TCK: >> >> >> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... >> >> It tests the following assertion: >> >> "If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a >> business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class.” >> >> The EJB containing the observers for the test is: >> >> >> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... >> >> The EJB contains one business method coming from a local interface, one >> from a remote and one static method. the 3 are observers methods >> >> The test expects that the remote business observer method should be >> called. >> >> Here we have an inconsistency IMO. By doing this we are violating rules >> the CDI spec regarding the fact that remote EJBs are not CDI beans. And we >> are calling this remote business method passing the event payload by >> reference and not by value which violates EJB specification regarding >> remote EJB. >> >> I suggest that we change the assertion to: >> >> If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a >> local business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class. >> >> and the TCK accordingly. Any thought ? >> >> Antoine >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > >

Hi guys, Bill Shanon, just pointed me to this test in TCK: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... It tests the following assertion: "If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class.” The EJB containing the observers for the test is: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... The EJB contains one business method coming from a local interface, one from a remote and one static method. the 3 are observers methods The test expects that the remote business observer method should be called. Here we have an inconsistency IMO. By doing this we are violating rules the CDI spec regarding the fact that remote EJBs are not CDI beans. And we are calling this remote business method passing the event payload by reference and not by value which violates EJB specification regarding remote EJB. I suggest that we change the assertion to: If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a local business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class. and the TCK accordingly. Any thought ? Antoine _______________________________________________ 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.

As Martin explained, it is not the case that "remote EJBs are not CDI beans".

Therefore, I am wondering why this behavior is a problem? AFAIK all the CDI implementations pass this test and therefore there may (at least in theory) be applications relying on this behavior.

Jozef On 16.7.2015 15:25, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote: > Hi guys, > > > Bill Shanon, just pointed me to this test in TCK: > > https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... > > It tests the following assertion: > > "If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a > business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class.” > > The EJB containing the observers for the test is: > > https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/1.2/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss... > > The EJB contains one business method coming from a local interface, one > from a remote and one static method. the 3 are observers methods > > The test expects that the remote business observer method should be called. > > Here we have an inconsistency IMO. By doing this we are violating rules > the CDI spec regarding the fact that remote EJBs are not CDI beans. And > we are calling this remote business method passing the event payload by > reference and not by value which violates EJB specification regarding > remote EJB. > > I suggest that we change the assertion to: > > If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either a > local business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class. > > and the TCK accordingly. Any thought ? > > Antoine > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >

Therefore, I am wondering why this behavior is a problem? AFAIK all the CDI implementations pass this test and therefore there may

least in theory) be applications relying on this behavior.

Le lun. 20 juil. 2015 à 15:31, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com <mailto:jharting@redhat.com>> a écrit : As Martin explained, it is not the case that "remote EJBs are not

beans". It's not written in black and white but in section 3.7 resources (http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#resources) , remote EJB are defined as resources and may can't be directly injected. So if remote EJB are beans EntityManager or Web Services are as well.

Therefore, I am wondering why this behavior is a problem? AFAIK all the CDI implementations pass this test and therefore there may

least in theory) be applications relying on this behavior.

Any thought? Antoine Jozef On 16.7.2015 15:25, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote: > Hi guys, > > > Bill Shanon, just pointed me to this test in TCK: > >

> > It tests the following assertion: > > "If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be

> business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class.” > > The EJB containing the observers for the test is: > >

> > The EJB contains one business method coming from a local interface, one > from a remote and one static method. the 3 are observers methods > > The test expects that the remote business observer method should be called. > > Here we have an inconsistency IMO. By doing this we are violating rules > the CDI spec regarding the fact that remote EJBs are not CDI beans. And > we are calling this remote business method passing the event payload by > reference and not by value which violates EJB specification

> remote EJB. > > I suggest that we change the assertion to: > > If the bean is a session bean, the observer method must be either

> local business method of the EJB or a static method of the bean class. > > and the TCK accordingly. Any thought ? > > Antoine > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@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. >