[cdi-dev] Clarification: CDI and its relationship with Session beans
arjan.tijms at gmail.com
Fri Feb 13 05:07:08 EST 2015
On Friday, February 13, 2015, Abhishek Gupta <abhirockzz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello folks - just wanted to gain some clarity here
> *Section 1.2.2* of the spec doc states that
> [quote] *Any session bean instance obtained via the dependency injection
> service is a contextual instance. It is bound to a lifecycle context and is
> available to other objects that execute in that context. The container
> automatically creates the instance when it is needed by a client. When the
> context ends,the container automatically destroys the instance* [/quote]
> (being a relative beginner) My first impression after reading this
> statement was the following - "*If I use @Inject for DI of an EJB into my
> class, the CDI container takes over it's control and actually destroys the
> instance after the context ends*".
> If we think in terms of @Stateless EJBs, this *might *not be the case
Indeed, and I would even say IS not the case. Even if the container would
not pool instances (like JBoss effectively does since Wildfly 8), then
every call to the injected bean can still go to another instance of the
There's therefor IMHO no concept of a bean to destroy, since there was
never any particular instance associated with the context in which the bean
The way I see it, a stateless bean from the point of view of a client is
close to an MDB or Servlet. You "send" a call to it, but there are no
guarantees which actual instance is going to service it.
Hope this is correct and hope it helps,
> since the EJB container might choose to return the instance to back to the
> EJB pool (I understand that this is not mandated by the EJB spec). Keeping
> this in mind, do you think that the statement in section 1.2.2 is correctly
> framed since it seems as if the CDI container will actually destroy the EJB
> I think this is better specified in *Section 7.3.3* (this section dives
> in deeper)
> [quote] *When the destroy() method is called, the container simply
> discards this internal reference*.[/quote]
> This might be a minor thing - but I am just trying to provide a 'beginner'
> point of view of and how he/she might interpret the contents of the
> specification with regards to its relationship with EJBs
> Feel free to correct me in case I am missing something.
> Best Regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev