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.

Hi all, First Laird, thanks you for all your feedback on CDI, they are very helpful. This section is indeed not clear, but my understanding is this one: 1) As we mention the fact that BeanManager.fire() can be invoked in an extension lifecycle event observer, it makes sense to say observer on lifecycle payload are supported in extension, otherwise firing an event during the BeforeBeanDiscovery lifecycle event for instance would be useless since the only CDI elements "discovered" at this step are portable extensions I tested in various Weld and OWB version, observers on non lifecycle payload are called when BeanManager.fire() is called 2) If extension can contain observers with custom payload that can be invoked during container bootstrapping, it is quite understandable that adding parameters to these observer can bring issue: matching bean may not have been discovered yet and will result in an error.

So for me, it makes sense to say that having an observer injecting something else than BeanManager in an extension is not safe and shouldn't be supported In other words void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload) { ... ) and void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload, BeanManager bm) { ... ) are supported in an extension, but void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload, MyBean bean) { ... ) is not because MyBean may be not discovered yet when observer will be triggered. Weld doesn't support it

, while OWB does, so we face a non portable feature here ;). 3) A side effect of your mail made me also realise that we mention BeanManger.fire() in this section despite its deprecation in CDI 2.0 (we should mention BeanManager.getEvent().select().fire()) This section really needs clarification, I'll create the ticket when we agree on what is part of the spec and not ;). Antoine On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:16 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 17.2.2017 v 07:08 Matej Novotny napsal(a): > Hi, comment inline. > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Laird Nelson" <ljnelson(a)gmail.com <mailto:ljnelson@gmail.com>> >> To: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@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 It's not a violation, it's a non-portable behavior. Weld should not complain about the injection points of the doSomethingAtStartup() observer method. >> 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. Yes, I think the possible confusion was the only reason. > 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 <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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Martin Kouba Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ 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.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:36 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Dne 17.2.2017 v 10:19 Antoine Sabot-Durand napsal(a): > Hi all, > > First Laird, thanks you for all your feedback on CDI, they are very helpful. > This section is indeed not clear, but my understanding is this one: > > 1) As we mention the fact that BeanManager.fire() can be invoked in an > extension lifecycle event observer, it makes sense to say observer on > lifecycle payload are supported in extension, otherwise firing an event > during the BeforeBeanDiscovery lifecycle event for instance would be > useless since the only CDI elements "discovered" at this step are > portable extensions > > I tested in various Weld and OWB version, observers on non lifecycle > payload are called when BeanManager.fire() is called > > 2) If extension can contain observers with custom payload that can be > invoked during container bootstrapping, it is quite understandable that > adding parameters to these observer can bring issue: matching bean may > not have been discovered yet and will result in an error. That's a good point. > So for me, it makes sense to say that having an observer injecting something else than > BeanManager in an extension is not safe and shouldn't be supported > In other words > > void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload) { ... ) > > and > > void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload, BeanManager bm) { ... ) > > are supported in an extension, but > > void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload, MyBean bean) { ... ) > > is not because MyBean may be not discovered yet when observer will be > triggered. > > Weld doesn't support it Are you sure Antoine? I quicly checked the Weld 3 codebase and "myObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload, MyBean bean)" should work. We only check injection points for container lifecycle events... Oops, you're right, I was a bit too fast in my writing, what is not supported in Weld (tested with 2.3.2, 2.4.2 and 3.0.0-CR1)and works in OWB is void MyObserver(@Observes @Initialized(ApplicationScoped.class) Object payload, MyBean bean) { ... ) Weld throws the following exception: WELD-000409: Observer method for container lifecycle event can only inject BeanManager Which is not very clear since the payload is not exactly a container lifecycle event... >, while OWB does, so we face a non portable > feature here ;). > > 3) A side effect of your mail made me also realise that we mention > BeanManger.fire() in this section despite its deprecation in CDI 2.0 (we > should mention BeanManager.getEvent().select().fire()) > > This section really needs clarification, I'll create the ticket when we > agree on what is part of the spec and not ;). > > > Antoine > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:16 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Dne 17.2.2017 v 07:08 Matej Novotny napsal(a): > > Hi, comment inline. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Laird Nelson" <ljnelson(a)gmail.com <mailto: ljnelson(a)gmail.com&gt;&gt; > >> To: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@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 > > It's not a violation, it's a non-portable behavior. Weld should not > complain about the injection points of the doSomethingAtStartup() > observer method. > > >> 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. > > Yes, I think the possible confusion was the only reason. > > > 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 <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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > -- > Martin Kouba > Senior Software Engineer > Red Hat, Czech Republic > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Martin Kouba Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Czech Republic

Am 17.02.2017 um 10:36 schrieb Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt;: Dne 17.2.2017 v 10:19 Antoine Sabot-Durand napsal(a): > Hi all, > > First Laird, thanks you for all your feedback on CDI, they are very helpful. > This section is indeed not clear, but my understanding is this one: > > 1) As we mention the fact that BeanManager.fire() can be invoked in an > extension lifecycle event observer, it makes sense to say observer on > lifecycle payload are supported in extension, otherwise firing an event > during the BeforeBeanDiscovery lifecycle event for instance would be > useless since the only CDI elements "discovered" at this step are > portable extensions > > I tested in various Weld and OWB version, observers on non lifecycle > payload are called when BeanManager.fire() is called > > 2) If extension can contain observers with custom payload that can be > invoked during container bootstrapping, it is quite understandable that > adding parameters to these observer can bring issue: matching bean may > not have been discovered yet and will result in an error. That's a good point. > So for me, it makes sense to say that having an observer injecting something else than > BeanManager in an extension is not safe and shouldn't be supported > In other words > > void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload) { ... ) > > and > > void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload, BeanManager bm) { ... ) > > are supported in an extension, but > > void MyObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload, MyBean bean) { ... ) > > is not because MyBean may be not discovered yet when observer will be > triggered. > > Weld doesn't support it Are you sure Antoine? I quicly checked the Weld 3 codebase and "myObserver(@Observes MyPayload payload, MyBean bean)" should work. We only check injection points for container lifecycle events... > , while OWB does, so we face a non portable > feature here ;). > > 3) A side effect of your mail made me also realise that we mention > BeanManger.fire() in this section despite its deprecation in CDI 2.0 (we > should mention BeanManager.getEvent().select().fire()) > > This section really needs clarification, I'll create the ticket when we > agree on what is part of the spec and not ;). > > > Antoine > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:16 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com > <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Dne 17.2.2017 v 07:08 Matej Novotny napsal(a): >> Hi, comment inline. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Laird Nelson" <ljnelson(a)gmail.com <mailto:ljnelson@gmail.com>> >>> To: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@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 > > It's not a violation, it's a non-portable behavior. Weld should not > complain about the injection points of the doSomethingAtStartup() > observer method. > >>> 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. > > Yes, I think the possible confusion was the only reason. > >> 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 <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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > -- > Martin Kouba > Senior Software Engineer > Red Hat, Czech Republic > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Martin Kouba Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ 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 Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:08 PM Matej Novotny <manovotn(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > 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. Right; that's what I'm doing at the moment. 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. Sure. 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? First, thanks to Martin, Antoine, yourself, etc. for looking at this. The issue is not holding me up, and I can make headway, etc. My remarks here are just because I'm curious. :-) Forgetting about confusion, couldn't I inject any bean I want in a non-container-lifecycle-event-observing observer method in my extension? I understand it's not supported right now, and I also understand Antoine's excellent point that observing a payload of type Object would, in a portable extension, be too "broad". Let's forget about that for a moment, and pretend that it's not an issue, and just focus on resolution issues. Surely this: void MyObserver(@Observes Object payload, SomeBean bean) { ... } ...would work (again, forgetting about the fact that due to resolution rules this would also be called for lifecycle events; I'm interested purely in resolution issues of that SomeBean parameter)? My point is, a portable extension "becomes" a bean (in application scope, according to the specification), and so therefore is eligible to use other beans, no matter what scope they're in, some of whose Contexts might be active, and some of whose might not be active. Obviously trying to use a bean before the container has gotten through AfterDeploymentValidation won't work, but after that point...? Like I said, now I'm just curious. :-) 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.