This is probably so obvious it hardly needs to be mentioned, but just in case: it would be great to have the Maven pom for <groupId>javax.enterprise</groupId>
<artifactId>cdi-api</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
fixed for the maintenance release. It need to reference the MR of javax.annotation (jsr-250) so that we get @Resource(lookup and javax.annotation.sql.
/Johan
2009/12/29 Gavin King
<gavin.king@gmail.com>
Folks, I want to start work on the first CDI maintenance release, and
push it out fairly quickly. We've already discussed a couple of things
that we wanted in CDI 1.0, but had to delay to the maintenance
release:
* Bean declaration at constructor level
* Abstract producer methods
* Injection into static members
I want to discuss these things in separate threads.
I also have a list of enhancements to the portable extension SPI,
which was the least-mature part of the spec, and I would like to
discuss with you guys whether some of those enhancements could/should
be rolled into the maintenance release.
For now, I just want to update the spec with a list of clarifications
that have cropped up. Please read over these items and speak up if you
have an opinion on any of them!
++ Methods of abstract decorators
The CDI 1.0 spec does not define what happens with abstract methods of
an abstract decorator class. This was an oversight. We should probably
say:
* If a decorator class declares an abstract method that is not
declared by one of the decorated types, a definition error results
* All abstract methods have a container-generated implementation
that simply delegates the method call to the delegate object
With this definition, I don't think we need any special-casing for
abstract methods annotated @Inject, @PostConstruct, etc.
++ Clarify that scope types should not have members
The spec should mention that @ScopeType annotations should not have
annotation members. Perhaps this should be a definition error.
javax.inject.Scope already mentions this.
++ Clarify that parameters of producer and disposer methods are
injection points of the producer method bean
We say that "....parameters are injection points." We should be
clearer and say "....parameters are injection points of the producer
method bean."
++ Clarify that not all classes in a bean archive are bean classes
We should be clearer and say that you can put non-bean classes (e.g.
MDBs) in a bean archive.
++ Clarify that there can be multiple AnnotatedType instances per Java class
This is not 100% clear in the spec.
++ Clarify that interceptors/decorators don't apply to producers in
resolution rules
We say this in the preamble, but we should also mention it in the
resolution rules.
++ In lifecycle chapter, clarify creation of interceptors/decorators
Not sure precisely what we need to say, but the note in 11.2 is not
sufficient, I think.
++ Producers and beans that are under construction
I think we need the spec to say something about cases where an
injection point of a bean resolves to a producer method of the same
bean. The implementation should detect that this is a definition
error. It shouldn't try to call a producer method on a
non-fully-initialized bean.
--
Gavin King
gavin.king@gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org