[cdi-dev] what Bean<T> implementations need to be PassivationCapable?

[Mark Struberg]

The question (once again) is whether the terminus 'bean' means the Bean<T>, the Contextual Instance or the Contextual Reference.

LieGrue,
strub



>________________________________
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
>To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> 
>Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org> 
>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 7:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] what Bean<T> implementations need to be PassivationCapable?
> 
>
>Hi
>
>
>just to share my point of view on it (alread ydiscussed with Mark):
>
>
>javadoc and spec both state this interface "Indicates that a custom implementation of Bean or Contextual is passivation capable."
>
>
>so a bean which doesn't impl it will not be passivation capable. From my understanding it means the proxy can't be serialized/unserialized without side effects.
>
>
>If it is not the case then this interface would be useless.
>
>
>Romain Manni-Bucau
>Twitter: @rmannibucau
>Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
>
>2013/3/18 Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
>
>Hi!
>>
>>By catching an issue we have with the custom Bean<T> implementations provided by Spring Data,  I got aware of a possible issue with PassivationCapable.
>>
>>Which Bean<T> need to implement PassivationCapable?
>>
>>6.6.1 seem to indicate that only beans or passivating scopes need a PassivationCapable bean.
>>
>>But in this case: how does a container implement the NormalScope proxies for such a Bean? Consider we inject such a Contextual Reference of such a Bean<T> (which does _not_ implement PassivationCapable), e.g. MyDataRepository into a @SessionScoped bean. And now clustering kicks in and we propagate our @SessionScoped bean to another node.
>>
>>What happens with the proxy for MyDataRepository? How will it 'reconnect' to the correct Bean<T> on the other side of the cluster? Imo this is only possible if all Bean<T> properly implement PassivationCapable.
>>Or should we use the bean type + qualifiers to create a synthetic passivationId? Does this hold waters?
>>
>>LieGrue,
>>strub
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cdi-dev mailing list
>>cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>
>
>
>