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

[Antoine Sabot-Durand]

> Le 6 mars 2015 à 11:06, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> that's not fully true Antoine, EJB does at least - but some guice extensions as well. If you have a EE 5/6/7 ejb lib then you can now break where you were not before. On CDI alone side it is fine but not for EE globally.

Nice feedback if we were march 6th 2014 before end of CDI 1.2 work. CDI-377 and CDI-404 were debated by a lot of people...


> 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 11:01 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net <mailto:antoine at sabot-durand.net>>:
> I checked that no other IoC framework was using @Interceptor before proposing the fix in CDI-377
> 
> 
>> Le 6 mars 2015 à 09:22, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>> 
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <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 <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 <mailto:cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <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 <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/20150306/9213ed30/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150306/9213ed30/attachment-0001.bin