[cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
Mark Struberg
struberg at yahoo.de
Wed Jan 14 10:59:07 EST 2015
Pete, the solution in Weld is a.) breaking other CDI spec paragraphs, b.) not clearly mandated and c.) randomly depending on the ELResolver order.
It is just not a wise idea.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
> Cc: Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com>; Edward Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com>; Cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 16:51
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
>
> As previously stated I don’t agree with your arguments, and I don’t believe you
> can prove “no one is using it”.
>
>
>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 15:49, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> No pete, the current Weld implementation breaks other CDI features! Sample
> with @Named("javax") already given in my other post...
>>
>>
>> It sucks, face it. And no one is using it anyway.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>> To: Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Edward Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com>; Cdi-dev
> <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 13:12
>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "."
> is not valid in an EL name.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>
More information about the cdi-dev
mailing list