[cdi-dev] PFD submission

[Mark Struberg]

>This change is in, and if you upgrade a schema to 1.1, by default, 
it won't pick up classes without a bean defining annotation. This is 
mostly covered in 12.1 and 12.4, the rest of the changes for this were 
largely cosmetic or the section in chapter 2 defining a bean defining 
annotation.

Hmm, I don't read 12.1 that way.  There is no single mentioning of 'Dependent' nor Scope in the whole paragraph 12! The only 'loose' grip I could find is

> Explicit bean archives may contain classes which are not deployed as beans...
> Implicit bean archives are likely to contain classes which are not deployed as beans.

But this way to unspecific for a spec imo. 'may contain' is just not enough as there is no single word about _how_ those beans shall be treated and what makes them not being picked up.


Also there is still an explicit defaulting to @Dependent scope in 2.4.4
> If the bean does not declare any stereotype with a declared default scope, the default scope for the bean is @Dependent. 

There is also a mentioning of a 'bean-discovery-mode' but no whatsoever description what it means nor which values are allowed and how they behave. 

I know the time is running out and you had a lot of other commitments, but I fear we have to fix a few things before we ship the final version. How much time is until the final deadline? 

LieGrue,
strub



>________________________________
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> 
>Cc: "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org> 
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] PFD submission
> 
>
>On 22 Feb 2013, at 21:01, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> Beans without any explicit scope still get picked up as @Dependent. 
>> I thought this was agreed to get dropped if beans.xml version=1.1 ?
>
>This change is in, and if you upgrade a schema to 1.1, by default, it won't pick up classes without a bean defining annotation. This is mostly covered in 12.1 and 12.4, the rest of the changes for this were largely cosmetic or the section in chapter 2 defining a bean defining annotation.
>
>> 
>> There are quite a few other wording and formatting changes which got added by bulk
>
>I don't think there are any "bulk" changes (except Martin's patch to give every section an id), though I'm not quite sure what a "bulk" change is. All of the changes I've put have addressed specific issues.
>
>> and make it hard to check for the differences since the last time I checked (and the EG didn't meet  since 2 months ago).
>
>Yes unfortunately my availability has been very patchy to work on the spec of late, for which I can only apologise. I am actively looking at ways to improve this for the next version of CDI (as we are now approaching the end of CDI 1.1, it's unlikely I can get anything sorted out before then). I'll let the list know as soon as I have anything definite in this area.
>
>As usual, please do bring stuff up on the mailing list :-)
>
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>> To: "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org> 
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:44 PM
>> Subject: [cdi-dev] PFD submission
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> We need to submit the PFD on Wednesday next week.
>> 
>> Please review the attached copy of the spec, it contains the current spec, with the proposed changes I sent out earlier, along with excludes in XML.
>> 
>> There isn't much more to add now, just a few bits of tidying up, which I'lll aim to do on Monday.
>> 
>> 
>> Please get any issues to me asap.
>> 
>> Pete
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> 
>
>
>
>