[cdi-dev] DefinitionException vs DeploymentException

Jozef Hartinger jharting at redhat.com
Tue Mar 3 09:46:21 EST 2015

If a given scenario is well defined in the specification such as this one:

"If a managed bean which declares a passivating scope is not passivation 
capable then the container automatically detects the problem and treats 
it as a deployment problem."

then the RI should be firing DeploymentException and the TCK should 
require DeploymentException. If this does not happen then it is a bug. 
Please file an issue for each such bug you find.


On 03/03/2015 02:54 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi!
> I think we currently fail to have a clean notion about what should be a DefinitionException and what should be a DeploymentException.
> It seems like most of the TCK in this regard is just modelling Weld behaviour and follows no whatever logic.
> E.,g. we have 2 tests doing almost the same:
> org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.bbd.broken.passivatingScope.AddingPassivatingScopeTest
> Which according to the TCK should throw a DefinitionException
> and
> org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.context.passivating.broken.NonPassivationManagedBeanHasPassivatingScopeTest
> which according to the TCK should throw a DeploymentException
> But BOTH actually do the same: they test if some managed bean implements Serializable. And both do this during bootstrap.
> Am I blind and don’t see the difference, or is all this just madly broken?
> LieGrue,
> strub
> _______________________________________________
> 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