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

[Mark Struberg]

The spec only says that the Bean must have this name. All the rest is some 3-rd level 'implicit' arguing. The spec does NOT say that the EL "javax...." must give you a Conversation...

LieGrue,
strub




----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> To: Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>
> Cc: Edward Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com>; Cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 12:20
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no,	"." is not valid in an EL name.
> 
> 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.
>