[cdi-dev] Would @PostActivate, @PrePassivate and @Remove make sense in JSR 250 ?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

it is not specified if called when duplicated or single time for
instance. Basically we have an API with no associated behavior so
these annotations are not that useful today. BTW it would be useful in
JCache N+1...but if we put all in common annotation then we could just
use javaee-api.jar since all will be mixed up again, no?


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau


2014-12-28 16:20 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <john.d.ament at gmail.com>:
> What would cluster have to do with it?  I believe standard practice (since
> EE doesn't define "cluster") is that when an EJB is used in a cluster, it's
> expected that SFSB's get replicated to other nodes w/ state in tact.  So the
> bean wouldn't be "re-activated" per se.
>
>
> On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 10:06:16 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Issue with XActivate is nothing is specified on what does mean activate
>> (think to a cluster)
>>
>> Le 28 déc. 2014 13:52, "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> PostActivate/PrePassivate are only applicable to EJBs (as of now).  EJBs
>>> work off of a pool of objects and these life cycle methods are typically
>>> used (from the use cases I've dealt with them) to initiate or destroy some
>>> end user data for the context in which they are used.
>>>
>>> I think you might be thinking of PostConstruct/PreDestroy which match to
>>> the CDI/ManagedBean paradigm better.  There's no pool of these objects
>>> around, they simply get created and destroyed when done.  For each of the
>>> scopes you mentioned, I would use a PostConstruct/PreDestroy method to do
>>> the same thing.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 7:39:14 AM Antonio Goncalves
>>> <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I was playing with @SessionScoped beans... and wondered if
>>>> @PostActivate, @PrePassivate and @Remove would make sense in JSR 250 ?
>>>>
>>>> At the moment these annotations belong to the javax.ejb package and are
>>>> only used in @Stateful EJBs. With CDI scopes, we end up with a few
>>>> "stateful" scopes (@SessionScoped, but also @ConversationScoped,
>>>> @ViewScoped...) so why not having the same functionality in CDI ?
>>>> @PreDestroy and @PostConstruct are already part of JSR 250. So why not
>>>> having @PostActivate and @PrePassivate as well so they could be used in
>>>> every bean ?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, while I was playing with @SessionScoped beans, I asked Antoine to
>>>> show me how to remove a bean from the session. It's only a few lines of
>>>> code, but again, why not having a @Remove annotation that does that (the
>>>> exact same one of javax.ejb.Remove) ?
>>>>
>>>> To summarize, why not taking some of those stateful EJB concerns back to
>>>> JSR 250 so they could be used anywhere ?
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Antonio Goncalves
>>>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>>>>
>>>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.