[cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods

[Mark Struberg]

oki I see. But when having multiple parameters, it could lead to confusion if not all parameters would get @Inject annotated:

public void init(MyClass firstParam, @Inject AnotherClass seconsParam) {..


LieGrue,
strub


--- On Thu, 6/30/11, Adam Bien <abien at adam-bien.com> wrote:

> From: Adam Bien <abien at adam-bien.com>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] passivation capable parameters for producerMethods
> To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>
> Cc: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>, cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 10:49 AM
> Yes, recognized that. Buy your sample
> would be more readable:
> 
> Instead of: public @Inject setX(MyClass x) {}
> 
> this: public setX(@Inject MyClass x){}
> 
> It is redundant from the implementation perspective, but
> easier to read from the user perspective :-)
> 
> I would not change anything, but only allow @Inject for
> parameters.
> 
> On 30.06.2011, at 12:34, Mark Struberg wrote:
> 
> > yes: it's not necessary ;)
> > 
> > You can only inject parameters into methods which get
> called by the container (e.g. @Observes @Disposal,
> @Produces, @Inject methods, etc). And for all those methods,
> the container _must_ inject the parameters itself. 
> > 
> > There is no 'mixed' mode possible, so we don't need
> that annotation on parameters as it would just be redundant
> ;)
> > 
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 6/30/11, Adam Bien <abien at adam-bien.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Adam Bien <abien at adam-bien.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] passivation capable
> parameters for producerMethods
> >> To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>
> >> Cc: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at redhat.com>,
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 9:59 AM
> >> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>