[cdi-dev] explicit bean archives discovery-mode 'annotated'

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Well @Interceptor is widely used elsewhere - that's the main one I can
think about.



Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com>

2015-03-06 9:15 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>:

>
> On 03/06/2015 09:03 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Well you cant ask libs to change their programming model for it IMO. It is
> clearly a regression.
>
> Why not? Existing applications (empty beans.xml) will still work as before
> so there is no regression. If a lib wants to support
> bean-discovery-mode="annotated" then it has to adapt. It would be better if
> they did not have to but it's too late at this point.
>
> Another broken case is if any other IoC uses some of these annotations but
> doesnt rely on scanning. Now you scan the jar and can get surprises and
> even an Error.
>
> Yes, this was a risk when implicit bean archives were introduced. This was
> in the end mitigated by only making CDI annotations as bean defining (most
> likely other IoC won't use CDI annotations) plus introducing bdm="none"
> mode.
>
>  Le 6 mars 2015 08:12, "Jozef Hartinger" <jharting at redhat.com> a écrit :
>
>> This interface/enum discovery use-case very often uses a marker
>> annotation (e.g. @MessageBundle). Such extension can work around this
>> limitation by making the marker annotation a @Stereotype. Can you see
>> any other scenarios where implicit bean archives are a problem?
>>
>> On 03/05/2015 09:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> > Well, the terms ‚explicit‘ and ‚implicit‘ BDA are blurry as well.
>> I_explicitly_  add a beans.xml with version=1.1 and
>> bean-discovery-mode=„annotated“ and still it is an ‚implicit‘ BDA according
>> to those definitions. Not very self-explaining but anyway. Has not much to
>> do with the current topic as well, so not sure why you mentioned it?
>> >
>> > An example of usability would e.g. be the DeltaSpike @MessageBundle
>> feature. Seam3 has had something similar afair.
>> > For those who don’t know it see [1]. You basically have an interface
>> and DeltaSpike automatically picks those up and provides implementations
>> for them which are registered as Beans.
>> >
>> > But in the ‚annotated‘ mode we wont get any PAT for those interfaces
>> anymore. The same mechanism is used tor JPA archives, PropertyFileConfig,
>> etc…
>> > Just grep DeltaSpike and check where PAT gets used. It’s all over the
>> place…
>> >
>> > 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150306/34aa4a21/attachment.html