[cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
Romain Manni-Bucau
rmannibucau at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 05:27:10 EST 2015
""A valid bean name is a period-separated list of valid EL
identifiers."" explicitely means a bean name is not a valid EL
identifier if it contains a period: all its parts are valid but put
together it is not more valid (as explained in EL spec with the period
meaning BTW).
This pattern is just not usable - I guess it is not used at all BTW:
@Named("team1.superBean") and @Named("team1.superBean.enriched") will
lead to conflicts and that's things I saw several times in spring apps
which are clearly not possible using CDI + EL properly.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-15 11:22 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>:
>
> On 01/15/2015 11:11 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>> Jozef, your argumentation is flawed already at the very beginning.
>> Currently there is no bean with the name "javax", thus "x.y ... and x is the
>> bean name of the other bean" will not be a problem.
>>
>> All that javax is simply not a bean name but a dirty hack in the
>> ELResolver. That is something totally different.
>
> Mark, please read the e-mail again. I am not saying there are two beans
> named "javax". I am saying there are two beans with the following names:
>
> - javax.enterprise.context.conversation (the built-in one)
> - javax (Marks's bean)
>
> where the former one is in form x.y where y is a valid bean name:
> (javax) . (enterprise.context.conversation)
>
> and thus since javax is both x above and a bean name of Mark's bean, this
> results in an exception.
>
>
>>
>> Thus the rest of your argumentation chain is also invalid.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>> On Thursday, 15 January 2015, 10:47, Jozef Hartinger
>>> <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> T he @Named("javax") argument is not valid. The spec says:
>>>
>>> Suppose two beans are both available for injection in a certain war, and
>>> either:
>>> - the two beans have the same bean name and the name is not resolvable,
>>> or
>>> - the bean name of one bean is of the form x.y, where y is a valid bean
>>> name, and x is the bean
>>> name of the other bean,
>>> the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a
>>> deployment problem.
>>>
>>> So we have two beans:
>>> - javax.enterprise.context.conversation (the built-in one)
>>> - javax (Marks's bean)
>>>
>>> now:
>>>
>>> 1) the bean name of one bean is of the form x.y, where y is a valid bean
>>> name - that is javax.enterprise.context.conversation
>>> x = javax
>>> y = enterprise.context.conversation
>>> 2) and x is the bean name of the other bean - same as the name of Mark's
>>> @Named("javax") bean
>>> 3) the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a
>>> deployment problem
>>>
>>> Therefore, a bean named @Named("javax") will cause a deployment
>>> problem
>>> no matter whether it is actually available via EL or not.
>>>
>>> To summarize, the spec already anticipates the problem and forbids this
>>> case explicitly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/14/2015 04:45 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And then break all applications which have a @Named("javax")
>>>
>>> public class MyBean?
>>>>
>>>> It's simply not an option imo. It breaks lots of other specs and
>>>
>>> features. This is an XOR situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: Cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>; Edward Burns
>>>
>>> <edward.burns at oracle.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015, 11:56
>>>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Answer from EL spec lead: no, "."
>>>
>>> is not valid in an EL name.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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