[cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
Pete Muir
pmuir at redhat.com
Wed Jan 14 11:03:01 EST 2015
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 15:59, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> Pete, the solution in Weld is a.) breaking other CDI spec paragraphs,
Which ones.
> b.) not clearly mandated
I disagree with this, I think the mandate is clear. The name is specified.
> and c.) randomly depending on the ELResolver order.
The container must make sure that the ELResolver order is correct.
>
>
> 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