Re: [weld-dev] [cdi-dev] Question about the spec for BeanManager.getBeans

Matej, Thanks for your quick reply! I think the spec is quite clear by saying the candidates of typesafe resolutions defined in Performing typesafe resolutions... surely a disabled bean cannot be a candidate. it is simply disquailified. It did not say eliminate all beans but one though. I think it should be eliminate disqualified ones and leave all qualified at least. I am sending to cdi-dev for clarification. Antoine, please comment. Many thanks, Emily =========================== Emily Jiang WebSphere Application Server, Liberty Architect for MicroProfile and CDI MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278 Email: emijiang(a)uk.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB From: Matej Novotny <manovotn(a)redhat.com&gt; To: Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC(a)uk.ibm.com&gt; Cc: weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG(a)uk.ibm.com&gt; Date: 24/08/2018 16:17 Subject: Re: [weld-dev] Question about the spec for BeanManager.getBeans ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi Looking at spec 11.3.6. Obtaining a Bean by type[1] I can see that the paragraph ends with "according to the rules for candidates of typesafe resolution defined in Performing typesafe resolution.". The important word here is *candidates* IMO. The way typesafe resolution is defined, both the original bean and the alternatives are candidates. According to spec, the original bean is still considered enabled[2] Note that CDI spec doesn't say that @Alternative would completely eliminate the original bean, it just takes precedence during resolution (as opposed to what specialization does[3]). Last but not least, one thought - if the getBeans() method was to perform a typesafe resolution and eliminate all but one bean - why would it return a Set (and not throw unsatisfied/ambiguous exceptions)? :) Matej ______________________________________________________________________________ [1] http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#bm_obtain_bean_by_type [2] http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#enablement [3] http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#specialization ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC(a)uk.ibm.com&gt; > To: weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Cc: "Emily Jiang" <EMIJIANG(a)uk.ibm.com&gt; > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 3:10:05 PM > Subject: [weld-dev] Question about the spec for BeanManager.getBeans > > Hello > > I was made aware of the difference on the return of > beanManager.getBeans(Object.class) between OWB and Weld > > In OWB, it returns all beans, unless there is an enabled @alternative within > the application. If there is an enabled @alternative getBeans() only returns > beans annotated @alternative. > > However, in Weld, it returns all beans even with an enabled @alternative. > > The JavaDoc for BeanMnanager says "according to the rules of typesafe > resolution" and in the CDI 1.0 spec under typesafe resolution I find one > mention of alternatives: “When an ambiguous dependency exists, the container > attempts to resolve the ambiguity. The container eliminates all eligible > beans that are not alternatives, except for producer methods and fields of > beans that are alternatives.” (This text is also in the CDI 1.2 spec) > > However this would imply that if there are no enabled @Alternatives an > ambiguous resolution like beanManager.getBeans(Object.class) should discard > everything. In this case, the Weld behaviour is incorrect. > beanManager.getBeans() should only return the resolved or enabled beans. > > Regards > Benjamin > > Can someone verify this? > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > _______________________________________________ > weld-dev mailing list > weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU _______________________________________________ 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.