[cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.

Wed Jan 14 07:42:56 EST 2015

If "there is no problem with not passing a particular test from the EL
spec" then there is no problem with not passing a particular test from
the CDI spec at EE level which seems wrong to me.

Globally I'd just remove this test and keep it in Weld vendor specific features.

@martin: my 1) was for EL spec not CDI.

About 2 "#{javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id}" is legal if id
is a property of conversation which is a property of context which is
a property of enterprise which is a property of javax which is clearly
not what is desired and opposed to what is in the CDI spec.

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

2015-01-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>:
> I agree with Martin. We *should* fix this situation in the long term, which
> is what I proposed. However in the short term there is no problem with not
> passing a particular test from the EL spec. Additionally this is provably
> implementable as Weld implements this, and many Java EE containers pass. As
> there are no other spec defined beans javax, then we do not conflict with
> any other spec by implementing it this way.
>
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 12:10, Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Dne 14.1.2015 v 12:43 Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a):
>
> well there are 2 points:
> 1) a test should be added for it
>
>
> There was a CDI TCK test since 1.1
> (org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.context.conversation.LongRunningConversationPropagatedByFacesContextTest).
> It has been modified a week ago (see also CDITCK-462) not to use
> "javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id".
>
> 2) test or not being certified means respecting the spec (pdf, javadoc
> + tests themselve)
>
> So if there is this test a container can't be certified for EL + CDI
> at the same time
>
>
> I don't think it's a problem. An EL TCK test can't evaluate
> "#{javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id}" as an illegal expression -
> it's obviously legal. The problem is
> "javax.enterprise.context.conversation.id" can't be simply used as a bean
> name. If it is, a workaround is needed (see also
> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2015-January/005989.html).
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2015-01-14 12:35 GMT+01:00 Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>:
>
> Which EL test?
>
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:30, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> then it will not pass EL one
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2015-01-14 12:27 GMT+01:00 Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>:
>
> No, a Java EE container needs to pass this test.
>
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:21, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> so it means a JavaEE container will not pass this test but it is not an
> issue?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2015-01-14 12:20 GMT+01:00 Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>:
>
> I don’t think they should be excluded. The spec isn’t ambiguous about this,
> and it is supportable.
>
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:13, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> So for CDI 1.2 the test that tests this should not be excluded after all,
> correct?
>
> On 01/14/2015 11:56 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>
> We need to go for both (A) and (B).
>
> We would need to deprecate the existing name before we can allow it to not
> be supported. This means CDI 3. So I would suggest we deprecate it in 2, add
> an alternative that can be used, and then consider removing it in CDI 3. In
> the meantime for CDI 2, we will need to improve the TCK to check this more
> carefully.
>
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 10:09, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for B (IMO it is not used that much)
>
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2015-01-14 10:54 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>:
>
> I think further action is needed on this. Now that it has been confirmed
> that "javax.enterprise.context.conversation" itself is not a valid EL
> name we should either:
>
> A) Require all CDI implementations to adapt the property-based approach
> which allows this to be implemented portably (as Weld does)
> B) Declare publicly that although the CDI spec declares the given name,
> it is a bug and applications should not use the name. (What about
> compatibility with existing applications?)
>
> Jozef
>
> On 01/08/2015 09:27 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> Dear CDI fellows!
>
> I've received an answer regarding our EL question from the EL Spec Lead.
>
> Ed, thanks for helping us!
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 23:14, Edward Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Mark,
>
> To close this out, no, "." is not valid in an EL name.  An EL name
> must
> be a java identifier.  I'm told this was discussed by Pete a long time
> ago in the EL 3.0 EG.
>
> Ed
>
> --
> | edward.burns at oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
> | 42 days til DevNexus 2015
> | 52 days til JavaLand 2015
> | 62 days til CONFESS 2015
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>