[cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods

[Adam Bien]

On that note: is there a reason why there is no ElementType.PARAMETER as Target in @Inject?:

@Target(value = {ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.CONSTRUCTOR, ElementType.FIELD})
@Retention(value = RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Documented
public @interface Inject {
}



On 30.06.2011, at 10:24, Mark Struberg wrote:

> 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