[cdi-dev] where is defined javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Well it is quite explicit:

1.6 Operators [] and .
The EL follows ECMAScript in unifying the treatment of the . and [] operators.
expr-a.identifier-b is equivalent to expr-a[“identifier-b”]; that is, the
identifier identifier-b is used to construct a literal whose value is
the identifier,
and then the [] operator is used with that value.

so javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id =
javax["enterprise"]["context"]["conversation"]["id"].

If then you follow the EL resolution agorithm there is no way which
can match our name case - and EL is only inspired from ECMA and doesnt
follow all its rules.

The best would be to add a "cdi" object (whatever name it is while it
is compliant) and to allow:

${cdi['javax.enterprise.context.conversation']} syntax, exactly like
requestScope can be used to get javax.servlet.* properties.


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


2015-01-06 12:46 GMT+01:00 Tomas Remes <tremes at redhat.com>:
>
> 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.
>
> Tom
>
> ----- 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? :)
>>
>>
>> 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.