[cdi-dev] bean archives

Tue May 5 04:19:00 EDT 2015

In this case, the spec section 5 will just need to be updated then.

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:

>  No, it's not the case that "all CDI 1.0 implementor checks all jars
> having beans.xml and then merge the classes to the module bean archive".
> Some CDI 1.0 implementations implement the spec properly including the fine
> granularity of Chapter 12, some don't and since the TCK for CDI 1.0 is does
> not test much in this area it allows both groups to pass. That was fixed in
> subsequent TCK releases.
>
>
> On 05/04/2015 11:52 PM, Emily Jiang wrote:
>
> ah. ok. For cdi 1.0, if all the implementor checks all jars having
> beans.xml and then merge the classes to the module bean archive, this will
> be fine. I think a spec issue will be raised to update section 5.
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> The CDI-1.0 TCK initially did not check anything in that regard. A test
>> got added in a _very_ late version. This was in fact released AFTER CDI-1.1
>> was published if I remember correctly. So this version is not even part of
>> the EE6 TCK…
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> > Am 04.05.2015 um 09:07 schrieb Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>:
>> >
>> > Yes, chapter 5 is a bit confusing when it comes to composite Java EE
>> modules. Comments inline:
>> >
>> > On 05/03/2015 12:20 AM, Emily Jiang wrote:
>> >> I agree with Mark. I am confused about section 5 and section 12.
>> Weld-2 leaves the work of specifying the bean archive to the integrator. I
>> am wondering how the new version of app server using Weld-2 can pass the
>> CDI 1.1/1.2 CTS at all if the integrator creates its bean archives based on
>> section 12.
>> > The TCK for CDI 1.0, 1,1 and 1.2 expect Chapter 12 to be implemented.
>> Therefore, implementing bean archive as defined in Chapter 12 is the right
>> approach for a Weld integrator.
>> >>
>> >> I am guessing CDI 1.1/1.2 cts, the updated version of CDI 1.0(?),  is
>> based on section 5. Can someone confirm? The spec needs to be updated to
>> remove the conflict between section 5 and section 12.
>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> From: Emily Jiang <emijiang6 at googlemail.com>
>> >> Date: Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:21 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] bean archives
>> >> To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I agree with Mark. I am confused about section 5 and section 12.
>> Weld-2 leaves the work of specifying the bean archive to the integrator. I
>> am wondering how the new version of app server using Weld-2 can pass the
>> CDI 1.1/1.2 CTS at all if the integrator creates its bean archives based on
>> section 12.
>> >>
>> >> I am guessing CDI 1.1/1.2 cts, the updated version of CDI 1.0(?),  is
>> based on section 5. Can someone confirm? The spec needs to be updated to
>> remove the conflict between section 5 and section 12.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
>> wrote:
>> >> Actually the rules are still not clear. Section 5 and 12 contradict
>> each other. The EE6 RI, JBossAS6 and TomEE and WAS did behave like in
>> section 5 (1 BDA per ee-module) whereas Weld-2 behaves like in section 12.
>> >>
>> >> LieGrue,
>> >> strub
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Saturday, 2 May 2015, 10:13, Antoine Sabot-Durand <
>> antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Emily,
>> >>
>> >> The rules) apply to each jar (archive). There is no merging, thus an
>> app can contain three types of archives :
>> >> Non bean archives,
>> >> Implicit bean archives,
>> >> Explicit bean archives.
>> >>
>> >> Antoine Sabot-Durand
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le 1 mai 2015 à 23:03, Emily Jiang <emijiang6 at googlemail.com> a écrit
>> :
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> I have a question on bean archives.
>> >>>
>> >>> For the jars under web-inf\lib, are they individual bean archives or
>> they should be merged   with web-inf\classes files and use the beans.xml
>> under web-inf\ to form one bean archive?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> If they are merged together to form one bean archive, what will
>> happen if they have their own beans.xml under Meta-inf dir?
>> >>>
>> >>> Below is the what spec says, but it does not mention the jar under
>> web-inf\lib. The spec should make this situation clear.
>> >>>
>> >>> In the CDI1.2 spec:
>> >>> When determining which archives are bean archives, the container must
>> consider:
>> >>> • Library jars, EJB jars or application client jars
>> >>> • The WEB-INF/classes directory of a war
>> >>> • Directories in the JVM classpath
>> >>> The container is not required to support application client jar bean
>> archives.
>> >>> A Java EE container is required by the Java EE specification to
>> support Java EE modules. Other
>> >>> containers may or may not provide support for war, EJB jar or rar
>> bean archives.
>> >>> The beans.xml file must be named:
>> >>> • META-INF/beans.xml , or,
>> >>> • in a war, WEB-INF/beans.xml or WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/beans.xml.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> Emily
>> >>> =================
>> >>> Emily Jiang
>> >>> ejiang at apache.org
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Emily
>> >> =================
>> >> Emily Jiang
>> >> ejiang at apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Emily
>> >> =================
>> >> Emily Jiang
>> >> ejiang at apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Emily
> =================
> Emily Jiang
> ejiang at apache.org
>
>
>

-- 
Thanks
Emily
=================
Emily Jiang
ejiang at apache.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150505/3aaf5eee/attachment-0001.html 