[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-579) Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?

[Romain Manni-Bucau (JIRA)]

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13152809#comment-13152809 ] 

Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDI-579:
----------------------------------------

I nkow we made TomEE supporting it but this is very unatural and error prone for users (you dev without a beans.xml then you add an extension to do X and finally nothing work anymore). I know it has been added for backward compatibility but not sure it is that relevant.

Since it is not that used I think it is still time to correct it in the spec and TCKs.

> Extension disqualifies a jar as 'implicit bean archive'?
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CDI-579
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-579
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Mark Struberg
>            Priority: Minor
>
> The bean-discovery-wording is a bit odd. 
> This has been in since CDI-1.1
> {code}
> An archive which:
> • contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, or,
> • contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive.
> is not a bean archive.
> {code}
> That means even if you have an @ApplicationScoped MyService class in a jar which has a single CDI Extension then this MyServices will *not* get picked up as CDI bean? At least according to this wording?
> Feels mega-weird to me and might conflict with the implicit beans archive definition a few lines below.
> I'm pretty sure in OWB we will pick those beans up. How does Weld behave?



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