4:27 p.m.
Hello weld
I had a customer with an issue that I believe occurred because they
annotated a field with both @Inject and @EJB. This has given me two
questions:
1) Should weld throw an error when a field is annotated with both
annotations?
2) If so is the correct way to add something like
if (ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(Inject.class) &&
ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(EJB.class)) {
throw ...
}
to Validator.validateInjectionPointForDefinitionErrors()
If so I'm willing to create a pull request, all I'd need is for you to
tell me what the error message should say and please point me to which
test I should expand to cover this case.
Regards
Benjamin
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
11:09 a.m.
New subject: Validating for fields that are annotated with both EJB and Inject
Hello,
what you are describing looks like a user error. Basically, for a given scenario it can be
uncertain who's handling injection and I can imagine some cases where there can be
race between then two frameworks.
Side note - Validator doesn't have EJB dependency and we don't want to add it
anywhere outside of EJB module. We would have to use WeldEjbValidator instead.
However, looking at specs, I didn't find any note on this so basically it is undefined
and I don't think we should validate it because:
1) it is a definition error that can be caught even by IDE (= before app runs)
2) we do not know how EJB subsystem reacts to similar situation, different servers might
have different solutions in place already
3) I would say this is a rare case and one where you usually realize what's wrong
pretty fast unless you just keep slamming multiple annotations you don't understand
onto fields ;-)
Similar scenario would emerge with Resource annotation or with com.google.inject.
Regards
Matej
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC(a)uk.ibm.com>
To: weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 4:27:05 PM
Subject: [weld-dev] Validating for fields that are annotated with both EJB and Inject
Hello weld
I had a customer with an issue that I believe occurred because they annotated
a field with both @Inject and @EJB. This has given me two questions:
1) Should weld throw an error when a field is annotated with both
annotations?
2) If so is the correct way to add something like
if (ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(Inject.class) &&
ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(EJB.class)) {
throw ...
}
to Validator.validateInjectionPointForDefinitionErrors()
If so I'm willing to create a pull request, all I'd need is for you to tell
me what the error message should say and please point me to which test I
should expand to cover this case.
Regards
Benjamin
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
12:42 p.m.
Matej,
Since @Inject can only work with a qualifier annotation not anything other
annotations, do you think adding a validation criteria to assert that is
acceptable?
For IDE validation, it is quite limited because a lot of work needs to be
done via runtime to figure out whether the 2nd annotation is a CDI
qualifier or not.
Thanks
Emily
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:28 PM Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC(a)uk.ibm.com>
wrote:
Hello weld
I had a customer with an issue that I believe occurred because they
annotated a field with both @Inject and @EJB. This has given me two
questions:
1) Should weld throw an error when a field is annotated with both
annotations?
2) If so is the correct way to add something like
if (ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(Inject.class) &&
ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(EJB.class)) {
throw ...
}
to Validator.validateInjectionPointForDefinitionErrors()
If so I'm willing to create a pull request, all I'd need is for you to
tell me what the error message should say and please point me to which test
I should expand to cover this case.
Regards
Benjamin
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
--
Thanks
Emily
12:53 p.m.
Dne 15. 04. 20 v 12:42 Emily Jiang napsal(a):
Matej,
Since @Inject can only work with a qualifier annotation not anything
other annotations,
That's not correct. You can add any annotation to an injection point.
I've seen it several times where a framework inspected the
InjectionPoint to find certain annotations that have no meaning in CDI.
do you think adding a validation criteria to assert
that is acceptable?
For IDE validation, it is quite limited because a lot of work needs to
be done via runtime to figure out whether the 2nd annotation is a CDI
qualifier or not.
Thanks
Emily
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:28 PM Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC(a)uk.ibm.com
<mailto:BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com>> wrote:
Hello weld
I had a customer with an issue that I believe occurred because they
annotated a field with both @Inject and @EJB. This has given me two
questions:
1) Should weld throw an error when a field is annotated with both
annotations?
2) If so is the correct way to add something like
if (ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(Inject.class) &&
ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(EJB.class)) {
throw ...
}
to Validator.validateInjectionPointForDefinitionErrors()
If so I'm willing to create a pull request, all I'd need is for you
to tell me what the error message should say and please point me to
which test I should expand to cover this case.
Regards
Benjamin
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 <mailto:weld-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
--
Thanks
Emily
_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
--
Martin Kouba
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat, Czech Republic
12:59 p.m.
+1 to what Martin says, I've seen similar scenarios.
Matej
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Kouba" <mkouba(a)redhat.com>
To: "Emily Jiang" <emijiang6(a)googlemail.com>, "Benjamin
Confino" <BENJAMIC(a)uk.ibm.com>
Cc: "Weld-Dev List" <weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:53:16 PM
Subject: Re: [weld-dev] Validating for fields that are annotated with both EJB and
Inject
Dne 15. 04. 20 v 12:42 Emily Jiang napsal(a):
> Matej,
>
> Since @Inject can only work with a qualifier annotation not anything
> other annotations,
That's not correct. You can add any annotation to an injection point.
I've seen it several times where a framework inspected the
InjectionPoint to find certain annotations that have no meaning in CDI.
> do you think adding a validation criteria to assert
> that is acceptable?
> For IDE validation, it is quite limited because a lot of work needs to
> be done via runtime to figure out whether the 2nd annotation is a CDI
> qualifier or not.
>
> Thanks
> Emily
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:28 PM Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC(a)uk.ibm.com
> <mailto:BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello weld
>
> I had a customer with an issue that I believe occurred because they
> annotated a field with both @Inject and @EJB. This has given me two
> questions:
>
> 1) Should weld throw an error when a field is annotated with both
> annotations?
>
> 2) If so is the correct way to add something like
>
> if (ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(Inject.class) &&
> ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(EJB.class)) {
> throw ...
> }
>
> to Validator.validateInjectionPointForDefinitionErrors()
>
> If so I'm willing to create a pull request, all I'd need is for you
> to tell me what the error message should say and please point me to
> which test I should expand to cover this case.
>
> Regards
> Benjamin
> 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 <mailto:weld-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Emily
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> weld-dev mailing list
> weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
>
--
Martin Kouba
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
1471
days inactive
1472
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Benjamin Confino -
Emily Jiang -
Martin Kouba -
Matej Novotny