[cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods

[Mark Struberg]

filed under

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-141

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Thu, 6/30/11, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:

> From: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods
> To: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>
> Cc: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 8:24 AM
> I thought about it and I guess this
> restriction comes from the picture of using the @Inject
> methods and ct params as kind of dumb setters
> 
> private MyClass x;
> 
> public @Inject setX(MyClass x) {
>   this.x = x;
> }
> 
> In this 'dumb' cases it would make sense. But inject
> methods could contain much more intelligence - even wrap
> those parameters in Serializable implementations themself. 
> So I think the restriction is just too much...
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 6/30/11, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters
> for producerMethods
> > To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>
> > Cc: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 7:38 AM
> > 
> > On 30 Jun 2011, at 08:34, Mark Struberg wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, the example with the EntityManager might be
> > confusing. Just s/EntityManager/SomeOtherClass/ :)
> > > (Btw, only EntityManagers provided by producer
> fields
> > are 'injectable resources' as per the spec and thus
> made
> > auto-serializable.
> > 
> > Yes, that's what I wrote ;-)
> > 
> > > Which is btw imo technically impossible if the
> EM
> > contains locking states. But that's another story...
> > 
> > I don't believe CDI requires you to actually restore
> the
> > same EM on the other side of passivation, it's just
> the
> > reference must be passivation capable... We should
> > investigate this.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I wonder if Weld does implement this at all. We
> > recently got an issue reported for OWB that some parts
> of
> > Seam are not working.
> > 
> > It does IIRC.
> > 
> > > It looks like OWB performs those tests and fails
> with
> > a deployment exception whereas Weld doesn't detect
> it.
> > 
> > Can you elaborate with the issue?
> > 
> > > Are there TCK tests for this behaviour?
> > 
> > There are some.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I'd favour to drop that language and
> functionality if
> > noone objects.
> > 
> > Please file a CDI issue and we can discuss.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Btw, there are also a few other occurrences :
> > > 6.6.4
> > >> If a managed bean which declares a
> passivating
> > scope:
> > >> * has a non-transient injected field, <-
> that
> > part is fine
> > >> bean constructor parameter or initializer
> method
> > parameter
> > >> that does not resolve to a passivation
> capable
> > dependency, or
> > > 
> > > But I don't get the contructor parameter and
> @Inject
> > method parameter criteria.
> > 
> > Right, it's the same thing. Add it to the issue.
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>