[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-574) Should a disabled @Specialized disable a second bean?

[Mark Struberg (JIRA)]

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13135310#comment-13135310 ] 

Mark Struberg commented on CDI-574:
-----------------------------------

I fear there pretty much _is_ ambiguity with this interpretation. Because in all the other bean archives - where the @Alternative @Specializes is *not* active there is NO bean satisfying these types at all! Because for *them* the original bean is disabled because it is 'specialized away' but the @Alternative @Specializes bean is not enabled neither... 
This app imo shouldn't even start. Because if it does then it will blow up at runtime.

> Should a disabled @Specialized disable a second bean?
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CDI-574
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-574
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Clarification
>          Components: Inheritance and Specialization
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.Final
>         Environment: n/a
>            Reporter: Emily Jiang
>
> In CDI specification Section 4.3:
> When an enabled bean, as defined in Section 5.1.2, “Enabled and disabled beans”, specializes a second bean, we can be certain that the second bean is never instantiated or called by the container. Even if the second bean defines a producer or observer method, the method will never be called.
> The spec says only an enabled bean can specialize a second bean. Can a disabled specialized bean specialize a second bean?
> Weld asserts a disabled specialized bean specializes a second bean while OWB asserts a disabled specialized bean does not specialize a second bean.
> This needs to be clarified.
> In more details:
> I have an application containing two wars.
> testDiffBDA.war
> testDiffBDA.war/WEB-INF/classes/test/diff/web/FrontEndServlet.class
> @Inject CounterProducerConsumerModified2 bean;
> beans-xml-modified2.jar
> containing one bean and an empty-ish beans.xml :
> @Inject at CounterModifiedQualifier String modifiedProducer;
> beans-xml-modified.jar.jar
> CounterModifiedQualifier  (the interface)
> CounterProducerModified (the bean implementing that interface)
> AlternativeCounterProducerModified (an alternative specialized bean)
>  beans.xml
>    <alternatives>
>         <class>com.ibm.jcdi.test.beansxml.AlternativeCounterProducerModified</class>
>    </alternatives>
> My application failed deployment with the error on Weld but worked on OpenWebBeans
> {code}
> [ERROR   ] CWWKZ0004E: An exception occurred while starting the application testDiffBDA. The exception message was: com.ibm.ws.container.service.state.StateChangeException: org.jboss.weld.exceptions.DeploymentException: WELD-001408: Unsatisfied dependencies for type String with qualifiers @CounterModifiedQualifier
>   at injection point [BackedAnnotatedField] @Inject @CounterModifiedQualifier com.ibm.jcdi.test.beansxml.CounterProducerConsumerModified2.modifiedProducer
>   at com.ibm.jcdi.test.beansxml.CounterProducerConsumerModified2.modifiedProducer(CounterProducerConsumerModified2.java:0)
> {code}
> After further investigation and talking to Martin from Weld, the error was caused due to the fact of AlternativeCounterProducerModified disabling the CounterProducerModified bean but itself is not enabled in the jar of beans-xml-modified2.jar. Therefore, no producer is active to produce a bean with the qualifier CounterModifiedQualifier.
> From Weld's perspective, any bean annotated with @Specialized disables a second bean regardless whether itself is active or not.
> My understanding is that the specialized should only take effect if itself is enabled. Otherwise, we run into the situation of where the specialized bean is not enabled but it disabled another bean. To me, it is wrong.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)