[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDI-579:
----------------------------------------
From my understanding when I impl-ed it in TomEE it was for existing
extension registering beans from jars without beans.xml. If these jars are now auto
discovered the app can be broken.
That said I still think it is rare enough - [~mkouba] I don't think my experience
represents the whole CDi community but 1. nobody said me I was wrong cause they met
another case until now , 2. we can get a polling as we did for @New.
Just passively thinking it can be used and add a mess in the spec for that is not the best
default IMO (feature flag are a headache most of the time for deployers/users so if we can
avoid it it would be better. If we cant then fine to add a flag or a new API in extensions
to activate annotated mode).
Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?
--------------------------------------------------------
Key: CDI-579
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Mark Struberg
Priority: Minor
The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd.
This has been in since CDI-1.1
{code}
An archive which:
• contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or,
• contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive.
is not a bean archive.
{code}
That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a
single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least
according to this wording?
Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a
few lines below.
I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)