[cdi-dev] RequestScope Life Cycle
Romain Manni-Bucau
rmannibucau at gmail.com
Tue Mar 8 08:33:16 EST 2016
will try to not hijack this thread and create another one for thread scope
;).
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>
2016-03-08 14:30 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
> Your mention of thread local scope is interesting indeed. We had just such
> a scope in Resin called @ThreadScoped, completely separate from
> @RequestScoped. As memory serves though even in Resin we basically
> implemented @RequestScoped as thread local scope.
>
> On Mar 8, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 2016-03-08 14:08 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>
>> I never assume anything related to HTTP requests are ever thread safe. I
>> don't know many folks that would make that assumption either. I think this
>> consideration is not a significant one. The spec, docs and tutorials out
>> there are pretty clear about the fact that none of the CDI scopes are
>> really thread safe in the way EJBs are.
>>
>>
> It is one of the main usage of request scoped in practise. It doesn't come
> from HTTP side but since it is used this way in several other places (like
> batch) it is now assumed everywhere. It has even been promoted by several
> CDI projects so sadly it is to be taken into account now even if I agree it
> is not the state we should be at today. If changed - servlet 3.0/3.1 broke
> several things to make the spec cleaner or more explicit so I guess CDI can
> work on this - it should be made very explicit in the spec and we should
> study a "thread local scope" replacement to fill the gap and propose a
> solution to this practise judged abusive.
>
>
>> On Mar 8, 2016, at 7:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> In TomEE we restart/stop it around most of hooks including the runnable
>> passed to start(Runnable) of the AsyncContext but keeping the now
>> widespread ThreadLocal nature of the @RequestScoped (= not the same as the
>> startAsync() call sadly). This passes CDI TCK but for the particular
>> request scope I would be happy to clarify it is actually bound to the
>> request and just reuse the same instances. In term of side effects it would
>> breaks the current thread safety users assume (with reason or not) but I
>> have no real clue if it would really breaks apps or not.
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> 2016-03-08 13:33 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>>
>>> Let's hope some of the implementors weigh in on this some time soon.
>>>
>>> I could write some tests on this but I would have no idea if I would
>>> have uncovered a bug given the ambiguity of the current spec text.
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2016, at 3:16 AM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reading over the CDI spec definition for request scoped beans, I am a
>>>> tad confused. When are request scoped beans being destroyed right now? Are
>>>> they just bound to the Servlet request thread and destroyed as soon as the
>>>> service method returns?
>>>
>>>
>>> In case of a Servlet request (request scoped beans are also tied to
>>> other kinds of "requests"), it's indeed not clear. In practice it looks
>>> like the moment between the first ServletRequestListener#requestInitialized
>>> and ServletRequestListener#requestDestroyed.
>>>
>>> The exact scope is troublesome for security too, since in most severs
>>> the request scope (and session scope and application scope) is active when
>>> a SAM is called (the SAM gets an HttpServletRequest after all), but this is
>>> not the case in all servers. E.g. in Liberty the RequestScope starts AFTER
>>> a SAM is called.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Arjan Tijms
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In case of asynchronous Servlets, are they kept around until the real
>>>> HTTP request actually completes the same way the underlying HTTP connection
>>>> is kept around? Or is that too difficult because it would require
>>>> integration at a very low level with the Servlet implementation?
>>>>
>>>> There's some language around asynchronous completion right now but it's
>>>> not very clear what actually happens. Does the onComplete, etc asynchronous
>>>> callback basically create new request scoped instances?
>>>>
>>>> > On Mar 7, 2016, at 10:28 AM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Even in the most conservative reading of this, the spec is clearly
>>>> not disallowing it.
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Mar 7, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The question is whether the spec does allow us to do it. And if
>>>> other containers consequently do it as well.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If it does then I will implement it in TomEE.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> LieGrue,
>>>> >> strub
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Am 07.03.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What this is saying is that it is not recommended to use them
>>>> because of the possible life-cycle mismatch. If they are not supposed to
>>>> work at all, the specification would have simply stated it won't work.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Anyway personally I have no reason to further discuss this. I'm
>>>> going to try to find a way to get this done for developers sooner rather
>>>> than later. If TomEE does not want to do it, too bad for developers.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Mar 7, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> "
>>>> >>>> Tasks that are submitted to a managed instance of ExecutorService
>>>> may still be running after the lifecycle of the submitting component.
>>>> Therefore, CDI beans with a scope of @RequestScoped, @SessionScoped, or
>>>> @ConversationScoped are not recommended to use as tasks as it cannot be
>>>> guaranteed that the tasks will complete before the CDI context is destroyed.
>>>> >>>> "
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> States that the context is not inherited, is that what you mean?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> >>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> 2016-03-07 5:57 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>>>> >>>> The specification currently references pretty much all the major
>>>> CDI scopes specifically with the issue of propagation and lifecycle in
>>>> mind. Please see section 2.3.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 11:53 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Specifically
>>>> >>>>> The containers mimic ejb for propagation for a good reason!
>>>> >>>>> No session e.g. , new TX, etc
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Sadly the concurrency utilis only mention @ApplicationScoped, so
>>>> the Request Context not only doesn't get propagated (which is good), but
>>>> also doesn't get set up (which is crap).
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> >>>>> Strub
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Am 06.03.2016 um 23:03 schrieb John D. Ament <
>>>> john.d.ament at gmail.com>:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I agree, in a sense, with what you're saying. There's nothing
>>>> in this spec that says it wouldn't be propagated. However, there's nothing
>>>> in this spec that states clearly that CDI contexts are propagated.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> If you look at the RI, the RI only seems to propagate
>>>> transaction state. Considering the age of the spec, I'm not surprised to
>>>> see that. The worst part is that right now, outside of the ASF, all other
>>>> EE7 impls seem to be using the RI for concurrency.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I'm fairly certain that from this spec's standpoint, the only
>>>> thing that's actually propagated is the transaction.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> John
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:50 PM Reza Rahman <
>>>> reza_rahman at lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> I am re-reading the spec end to end again right now. So far it
>>>> seems I have remembered everything correctly.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> You should read over section 2.3. What it is saying is that a
>>>> container implementing the Java EE concurrency utilities should ensure
>>>> whatever contextual information is needed for managed components to work
>>>> correctly should be propagated automatically. For the correct
>>>> implementation of CDI scopes, this should also mean any currently active
>>>> scopes. The section you are referring to is basically implying that
>>>> thinking that it is possible to use these scoped beans in tasks (albeit not
>>>> reliably since beans could go out of scope before the thread finishes - for
>>>> example if the request ends).
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> This does not have anything to do with the context service per
>>>> se. The context service is an SPI of sorts to allow end user developers to
>>>> do for their own applications what the container does behind the scenes for
>>>> managed component context propagation.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I'll read over the entire spec to see if there is anything to
>>>> contradict this. If that's not the case what Romain is describing is most
>>>> likely an implementation specific bug that did not take into account CDI
>>>> scope propagation.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 4:23 PM, John D. Ament <
>>>> john.d.ament at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Reza,
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> I read through the concurrency utils spec. Was there a
>>>> specific section you had in mind? The only references to CDI were near the
>>>> beginning warning users to not use Request/Session scoped beans as tasks
>>>> since the outer most context may be destroyed before the work is done.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> I have a feeling what you're referring to is the context
>>>> service:
>>>> http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/enterprise/concurrent/ContextService.html
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> If that's the case, then basically this should work OOTB right?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Task task = new MyTask();
>>>> >>>>>>> task = contextService.createContextualProxy(task, Task.class);
>>>> >>>>>>> executor.submit(task);
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> // now magically the context should be prop'd?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Is that about right?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> John
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 3:30 PM Reza Rahman <
>>>> reza_rahman at lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> Have you actually looked at the EE concurrency spec text in
>>>> detail? What does it say about managed component context propagation?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Without actually doing that further discussing this is just
>>>> taking shots in the dark. As an implementer it should not surprise you that
>>>> this might simply be a bug because the person implementing the concurrency
>>>> utilities for the EE runtime was not told about what to copy over into the
>>>> new thread for CDI to work correctly.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> 2016-03-06 20:59 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com
>>>> >:
>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as I know this is precisely the sort of thing that the
>>>> EE concurrency spec is intended for. It is supposed to copy over everything
>>>> from the underlying thread local context into the new thread for all EE
>>>> managed components to function. Since CDI beans are also EE container
>>>> managed, it also applies to CDI beans as well. The EE vendor is supposed to
>>>> make sure this works properly.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think the concurrency utilities specifically lists
>>>> APIs for which thread context propagation should work. If this doesn't work
>>>> in a specific implementation it's most likely because they didn't take CDI
>>>> into account in their own EE concurrency implementation.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> That's what I wanted/would like. CDI TCK breaks it quite
>>>> easily and @RequestScoped which is *used* today is sadly a
>>>> @ThreadLocalScoped badly named. So to solve it we would need another scope
>>>> as I mentionned several times on this list 100% matching servlet instances
>>>> lifecycles (on a pure CDI side we have the same issue for sessions which
>>>> are recycled during a request, the session scope is corrupted *by spec* in
>>>> term of user behavior).
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 2:45 PM, John D. Ament <
>>>> john.d.ament at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> The section of the spec you link to makes no references to
>>>> threads. 6.3 makes some notes about normal scopes and threads, and
>>>> specifically says that a context is bound to one or more threads.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think what's happened is that over the years, people have
>>>> simply bound HTTP Request == single thread, but when async processing was
>>>> introduced no one thought to clarify that the spawning of a child thread
>>>> from the original HTTP request retains the parent's context.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is another requested feature, but looks more like a bug
>>>> or gap in the spec.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> John
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:37 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2016-03-06 20:25 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com
>>>> >:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let's see. I suspect the specification text for EE
>>>> concurrency is generic enough for implementations to also be able to cover
>>>> CDI scopes or any other Java EE API context propagation needs. This means
>>>> the issue needs to be solved at the individual implementation level.
>>>> Changing anything in the spec is probably just unnecessary ceremony in this
>>>> case.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then 1. concurrency- utility can't be reliable for "EE"
>>>> users, 2. CDI still prevent it to work since it would violate the spec to
>>>> propagate it while request scope is bound to another thread (
>>>> http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.1/cdi-spec.html#request_context
>>>> handles async listener but not the main AsyncContext part).
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2016-03-06 19:42 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <
>>>> reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This frankly surprises me. I'll check the specification
>>>> text. This might indeed just be an implementation bug. The EE concurrency
>>>> utilities are supposed to be copying all relevant context. If this is an
>>>> issue than it has to be that it is not copying enough of the HTTP request
>>>> context for CDI to work.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The issue is not technical since I got it working but needed
>>>> to reverse. From my understanding ee concurrency utilities was done in a
>>>> time CDI was not there so it just ignored it somehow and it hasnt been
>>>> updated when integrated to the spec. Now with the wording of the CDI - and
>>>> TCK - it is impossible to make it working since request scope is bound the
>>>> thre request thread - and not the request. Side note: same applies to
>>>> session scope and conversation.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Surely the Red Hat folks can quickly shed some light here
>>>> since they implement essentially this whole stack?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2016-03-06 19:20 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <
>>>> reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you kindly try to make the example a bit simpler? It's
>>>> important to make the case for how likely this is supposed to occur in most
>>>> business applications.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, other than making sure that the executor service is
>>>> propagating thread local request contexts correctly what other solution are
>>>> you proposing? Did you check the specification? How sure are you that this
>>>> isn't simply an implementation bug?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As far as I know the executor service is supposed to be
>>>> preserving all relevant parts of the EE context?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not in concurrency-utilities for EE at least. That was the
>>>> first impl I did then Mark pointed out it was violating CDI spec and
>>>> request scope definition. There is a kind of contracdiction there cause
>>>> concurrency-utilities doesn't integrate with CDI at all but we can also see
>>>> it the opposite way: CDI doesn't provide any way to propagate a context in
>>>> another thread. Both point of view are valid so we need to see where we
>>>> tackle it.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>> https://gist.github.com/rmannibucau/d55fce47b001185dca3e help?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea is to give an API to make:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> public void complete() {
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> try {
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> asyncContext.complete();
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> } finally {
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> auditContext.end();
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> working without hacky and almost impossible context
>>>> pushing (cause of injections nature you are not supposed to know what to
>>>> push in the context when going async).
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-03-06 16:40 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <
>>>> reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you kindly share an annotated code example of the
>>>> proposed solution so we can all follow and discuss this?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wroteshar:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> spoke on concurrency utilities about the ability to
>>>> inherit a cdi scope. Idea is to follow request scope more than cdi spec
>>>> allows. First thought it was a concurrency utilities thing but Reza
>>>> mentionned can be a CDI one so here it is.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sample:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In a servlet i get MyBean which is @RequestScoped, I do
>>>> some set on it. The i go async (AsyncContext) and trigger a task in another
>>>> thread. It would be neat - and mandatory in some case by the loose coupling
>>>> nature of CDI - to get the *same* MyBean *instance* in this thread. With a
>>>> direct dependency you can easily use message passing pattern - but you
>>>> loose the loose coupling cause you need to know until which level you
>>>> unwrap, think t principal case which has 2-3 proxies!. However in practice
>>>> you have a lot of undirect dependencies, in particular with enterprise
>>>> concerns (auditing, security...) so you can't really do it easily/naturally.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonus:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One very verbose way is to be able to kind of push/pop an
>>>> existing context in a thread - wrappers doing it on a
>>>> Runnable/Consumer/Function/... would be neat.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Question:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would CDI handle it in 2.0?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Side note: this is really about the fact to reuse a
>>>> "context context" (its current instances map) in another thread the more
>>>> transparently possible and match the user vision more than a technical
>>>> question for now.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>> 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.
>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>> 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.
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160308/2f23f21c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the cdi-dev
mailing list