On 7 Jun 2010, at 12:19, Stuart Douglas wrote: Yeah, I think there is a strong case for providing this.

Agreed. And we can't use a pseudo-scope, as then there is no proxy. I guess we have to introduce a dependency on javassist for this then. On 8 Jun 2010, at 11:09, Stuart Douglas wrote:

I tried that, it did not work in weld, and according to the spec it is not required to work. We need the scope to be a Normal scope as we are after a client proxy, however according to the spec normal scopes need to follow the rules that I included below. I talked to Pete about this and I am going to resurrect the @ManagedProducer stuff I did in WELDX a while ago, but with javassist rather than JDK proxies. These work by injecting a dependent scoped proxy into the bean, and the proxy calls the @ManagedProducer method every time to get the instance to invoke the method on. This also has the advantage that you can inject the InjectionPoint into the @ManagedProducer method. I am not totally sold on the name @ManagedProducer, but as previously discussed making up names is not really my strong point :-) I committed an initial implementation last night, it still needs a bit more work but it should be functional. Stuart ________________________________________ From: Dan Allen [dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2010 9:56 AM To: Stuart Douglas Cc: Pete Muir; seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [seam-dev] Stateless scope Would it be possible to implement a scope that just doesn't store the instance? It would be like a request scope, except it would just skip adding it to the context so a new one each time it's accessed. That's basically how the stateless scope was done in Seam 2. The @Unwrap was something extra in Seam 2 since the injections were not proxy-based. We can merge the two ideas into a truly stateless scope since producers create first-class beans in CDI. -Dan On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Stuart Douglas <stuart@baileyroberts.com.au<mailto:stuart@baileyroberts.com.au>> wrote: I just tried to implement this and it did not work, and after looking at the spec even if it did work I don't think it would be portable due to the following language: Suppose beans A, B and Z all have normal scopes. Suppose A has an injection point x, and B has an injection point y. Suppose further that both x and y resolve to bean Z according to the rules of typesafe resolution. If a is the current instance of A, and b is the current instance of B, then both a.x and b.y refer to the same instance of Z. This instance is the current instance of Z. The other way of providing this is to provide an extension that uses javassist to create @Dependent scoped proxies, these proxies could then call the producer method on every invocation, however it requires a dependency on javassist. Stuart On 08/06/2010, at 3:19 AM, Pete Muir wrote: On 7 Jun 2010, at 12:19, Stuart Douglas wrote: I have been thinking about adding a stateless scope to weld extensions, that would allow for a similar construct to @Unwrap from seam 2. Basically if you have a Stateless producer method the the producer will be called every time a method on the proxy is invoked. The main downside that I can see is that beans that have a stateless scope no longer have a well defined lifecycle, so disposal methods etc will not be called, however as long as this is documented I don't think that this is much of a problem. Yeah, I think there is a strong case for providing this. _______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list seam-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:seam-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev -- Dan Allen Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action Registered Linux User #231597 http://mojavelinux.com http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen

Like Arnold Schwarzenegger, let's call it the @Instantiator ;) On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.com http://scrumshark.com "Keep it Simple"