[cdi-dev] where is defined javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id?
tremes at redhat.com
Tue Jan 6 06:46:25 EST 2015
Well I am not sure. Reading EL spec and ECMA script I can't see any wording which will imply a must to escape or quote the variable in this case. I think the current usage is not forbidden anywhere. I tried to escape or quote the part of variable but it didn't work. The result was considered as String instance or I got ParserException.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jozef Hartinger" <jharting at redhat.com>
To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>, "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament at gmail.com>, "Tomas Remes" <tremes at redhat.com>
Cc: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:19:16 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] where is defined javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id?
On 01/05/2015 10:09 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> The spec also only says that the BEAN must have this very name and not that
>>> the bean must be accessible by EL.
>> Given what the name is for in CDI this can be implied.
> well, but it's not up to the CDI impl to do this correctly.
No, my point was that if a bean is given a name it implies that this
bean should be accessible via EL.
>>> If we would really require this and the EL specification doesn't
>>> support it, then the CDI spec would contradict the EL spec, right?
>> No, it would mean that the name should be placed within quotes when
>> accessing the conversation bean from EL.
> The question is whether it really is defined in the EL spec that way. And further if the EL TCK does test this or if this is non-portable. The TCK test doesn't use escaping for what I saw. So this test is not ok.
Right, the TCK test should be fixed to escape the name properly.
> Why didn't we simply use underscores instead of dots? :)
More information about the cdi-dev