[cdi-dev] [PROPOSAL] further align CDI and EJB

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hi Mark,

few points on that topic:

- let the EJB container reuse AnnotatedType (ie even add @Stateless through
an Extension): +1
- veto an EJB as a whole and not only in CDI side - ie @Schedule is ignored
on EJB side of thing: I'm quite mitigated. Looks tempting but it would
break the compatibility with extsing apps I fear since veto is 100% a CDI
thing today.



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>

2015-11-11 11:47 GMT-08:00 Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>:

> Hi!
>
> We already do a decent amount of ‚side-by-side‘ handling in EJB and CDI.
> But there are still many aready where we could really move together much
> closer.
>
> E.g. the CDI spec defines that @Vetoed on EJBs must get accounted by the
> EJB container. But what happens with ProcessAnnotatedType#veto(). This one
> is not defined that clearly I fear.
>
> What if we (of course together with the EJB spec group) define that the
> EJB container must create the EJBs according to the effective AnnotatedType
> coming out after ProcessAnnotatedType? This would define that EJBs can also
> get modified via CDI Extensions. Some container do that already.
> The benefit of explicitly writing this down would obviously be that we
> would allow EJB to fully utilize the power of CDI Extensions in a portable
> way.
>
> Any objections, any ideas, any howtos?
>
> Let the ideas roll ;)
>
> 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/20151111/82bc6f12/attachment.html