[cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
Mark Struberg
struberg at yahoo.de
Wed Jan 14 11:22:31 EST 2015
See my other mail:
@Named("javax")
public class MyService
is a perfectly valid CDI bean. Still it would be broken with Weld.
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, 17:03
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
>
>
>> 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