11:04 p.m.
All
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-250
The way a bean's name is referred to in the CDI spec is somewhat disjointed.
I think this occurred because the CDI spec was written with the term "bean
name", but it got changed due to concerns over confusion with:
* JSF managed beans name
* @ManagedBean name
* EJB bean names
As a result, we now have a mix of "bean name", "bean EL name", and
"name", which is ultimately just confusing.
I would like to standardize on a single term, and I would propose "bean name".
Thoughts?
2:21 a.m.
Pete Muir wrote on 09/06/2012 07:04 AM:
All
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-250
The way a bean's name is referred to in the CDI spec is somewhat disjointed.
I think this occurred because the CDI spec was written with the term "bean
name", but it got changed due to concerns over confusion with:
* JSF managed beans name
* @ManagedBean name
* EJB bean names
As a result, we now have a mix of "bean name", "bean EL name", and
"name", which is ultimately just confusing.
I would like to standardize on a single term, and I would propose "bean name".
Thoughts?
I agree with standardizing on a single term.
Where can I use these names? My understanding is that they're only or
mostly used in EL expressions, thus "bean EL name".
Can I inject a bean by name? That would motivate the more general
"bean name".
4:22 a.m.
I always use the 3 terms
* Managed Bean
* Contextual Instance
* Contextual Reference
'bean' is pretty ambiguous, but CDI Managed Bean (*) (in capital letters) is clear
imo.
LieGrue,
strub
(*) I still hope all other Manged Beans should be gone in EE7...
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon(a)oracle.com>
To: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
Cc: Edward Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com>; cdi-dev
<cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Sorting out the "bean name" mess
Pete Muir wrote on 09/06/2012 07:04 AM:
> All
>
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-250
>
> The way a bean's name is referred to in the CDI spec is somewhat
disjointed.
>
> I think this occurred because the CDI spec was written with the term
"bean name", but it got changed due to concerns over confusion with:
>
> * JSF managed beans name
> * @ManagedBean name
> * EJB bean names
>
> As a result, we now have a mix of "bean name", "bean EL
name", and "name", which is ultimately just confusing.
>
> I would like to standardize on a single term, and I would propose
"bean name".
>
> Thoughts?
>
I agree with standardizing on a single term.
Where can I use these names? My understanding is that they're only or
mostly used in EL expressions, thus "bean EL name".
Can I inject a bean by name? That would motivate the more general
"bean name".
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
6:27 a.m.
On 6 Sep 2012, at 18:21, Bill Shannon wrote:
Pete Muir wrote on 09/06/2012 07:04 AM:
> All
>
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-250
>
> The way a bean's name is referred to in the CDI spec is somewhat disjointed.
>
> I think this occurred because the CDI spec was written with the term "bean
name", but it got changed due to concerns over confusion with:
>
> * JSF managed beans name
> * @ManagedBean name
> * EJB bean names
>
> As a result, we now have a mix of "bean name", "bean EL name",
and "name", which is ultimately just confusing.
>
> I would like to standardize on a single term, and I would propose "bean
name".
>
> Thoughts?
>
I agree with standardizing on a single term.
Where can I use these names? My understanding is that they're only or
mostly used in EL expressions, thus "bean EL name".
Mostly.
Can I inject a bean by name? That would motivate the more general
"bean name".
You can do
@Named("baz")
public class Foo {}
public class Bar {
@Inject @Named Foo baz;
}
We strongly recommend you don't do it, but you can...
6:39 a.m.
Pete Muir wrote on 09/06/2012 02:27 PM:
> Can I inject a bean by name? That would motivate the more
general
> "bean name".
You can do
@Named("baz")
public class Foo {}
public class Bar {
@Inject @Named Foo baz;
}
We strongly recommend you don't do it, but you can...
Can I do
@Inject @Named("baz") Foo wombat;
Or, more generally,
@Named("baz")
public class Foo implements Wombat {}
@Named("bletch")
public class Frob implements Wombat {}
public class Bar {
@Inject @Named("baz") Wombat wombat;
}
7:02 a.m.
On 6 Sep 2012, at 22:39, Bill Shannon wrote:
Pete Muir wrote on 09/06/2012 02:27 PM:
>> Can I inject a bean by name? That would motivate the more general
>> "bean name".
> You can do
> @Named("baz")
> public class Foo {}
> public class Bar {
> @Inject @Named Foo baz;
> }
> We strongly recommend you don't do it, but you
can...
Can I do
@Inject @Named("baz") Foo wombat;
Or, more generally,
@Named("baz")
public class Foo implements Wombat {}
@Named("bletch")
public class Frob implements Wombat {}
public class Bar {
@Inject @Named("baz") Wombat wombat;
}
Yes.
4262
days inactive
4262
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Bill Shannon -
Mark Struberg -
Pete Muir