Re: [weld-dev] spec question on 3.5 Resource Beans

JSR-299 does not define the behavior of @PersistenceContext, @Resource, etc for non-static fields.

Von: Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com&gt; Betreff: Re: spec question on 3.5 Resource Beans An: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; CC: weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Datum: Mittwoch, 17. Februar, 2010 20:50 Uhr JSR-299 does not define the behavior of @PersistenceContext, @Resource, etc for non-static fields. So why are you asking this question here? Refer to the EE spec and the managed bean spec to see what the requirements are. The *only* thing 299 defines is what happens when @Produces is combined with one of these annotations. On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: > Hi! > > I don't get it if section 3.5 is only meant as an example on how to map between e.g. a named persistence unit to a @Qualifier defined injection, or if this is now the ONLY way to inject @PersistenceUnits, etc. > > In the older versions of the spec it was explicitly defined that (at least in an EE environment) normal injections defined in JSR-250 et al must be supported, e.g.: > > private @PersistenceContext(unitName="myUnit") EntityManager myUnitEm; > private @Ressource(lookup="java:global/env/jdbc/CustomerDatasource") Datasource customerDs; > > have been perfectly valid and functional in older spec versions. > > Is this still allowed/has to be supported (in an EE environment)? Argument for this: "A resource MAY be declared by..." > Or will writing this annotations (without @Produces!) into a bean will not cause any injection by a JSR-299 container? > > In case of injecting @PersistenceContext, adding @Produces and a Qualifier imho simply makes them a producer field, so I don't understand why there is any need for a special 'resource bean' in this case. I also do not understand the restriction for disallowing @Named. Of course @Named in the EL sense doesn't make much sense for _any_ @Dependent scoped bean, but @Named is a perfectly valid qualifier also! So it would be perfectly valid to write > private @Inject @Named("specialEm") EntityManager em; > > It would also be perfectly possible to provide a EntityManager via a producer method btw, isn't? > > Is there any reason why we cannot simply say that injecting EE resources must be provided in an EE container? Then all your neat tricks should simply just work? > > txs 4 clarifying, > strub > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- Gavin King gavin.king(a)gmail.com http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin http://hibernate.org http://seamframework.org