[cdi-dev] TCK and spec question

[Mark Struberg]

While we are at it: This is actually true for ALL System Events, right?
So we should not define it in PAT but somewhere more general imo.

LieGrue,
strub





> On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:56, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Yes, we should explicitly define those other cases as non-portable if it 
> has not been done yet.
> 
> On 12/22/2014 09:49 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>  well, it's just the tip of the iceberg. It would be way easier to just 
> define any 'modification' as non-portable. That would be much more 
> precise and easier as well. And really covers al the edge cases as well.
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:42, Jozef Hartinger 
> <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>  On 12/22/2014 09:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>    No you can NOT I fear.
>>>> 
>>>>    How do you make sure that the AnnotatedType someone added 
> doesn't get
>>>  changed later? We have no whatever control over it. If some programmer  
> like to
>>>  make it mutable, well then it is that way and we have no chance to 
> detect that
>>>  :(
>>>>    Imo the only thing we can do is to point programmers to the fact 
> that this
>>>  is stupid -> non-portable behaviour.
>>>  Correct. This is stupid. But allowing setAnnotatedType() to be called
>>>  anytime does not help this at all.
>>> 
>>>  The fact that we throw the exception on setAnnotatedType() prevents a
>>>  class of bad things from happening. At the same time it does not 
> prevent
>>>  the other one that you mentioned. The fact that we cannot prevent all 
> of
>>>  them does not mean that we should not try to prevent those we can.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    LieGrue,
>>>>    strub
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>    On Monday, 22 December 2014, 9:29, Jozef Hartinger
>>>  <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>    On 12/21/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>>      Hi!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      I just came across this little sentence in the spec
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      11.5.6 "If any ProcessAnnotatedType method is 
> called outside
>>>  of the
>>>>>    observer method invocation, an IllegalStateException is 
> thrown."
>>>>>>      I don't believe such a limitation helps much. What 
> about
>>>  extensions who
>>>>>    do a setAnnotatedType and change this instance in a later 
> phase?
>>>>>    Such as?
>>>>>>        We have no whatever chance to prevent this anyway.
>>>>>    We can prevent that by throwing the exception, rather than 
> silently
>>>>>    ignoring that the extension is doing something wrong.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>      So why not just say that if a CDI System Event gets 
> modified
>>>  outside of the
>>>>>    method it gets injected into then non portable behaviour 
> results.
>>>>>>      LieGrue,
>>>>>>      strub
>>>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>>>      cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>>     cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      Note that for all code provided on this list, the 
> provider
>>>  licenses the
>>>>>    code under the Apache License, Version 2
>>>>>    (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all 
> other ideas
>>>  provided
>>>>>    on this list, the provider waives all patent and other 
> intellectual
>>>  property
>>>>>    rights inherent in such information.
>>>>> 
>