[cdi-dev] Managing Dependent Scoped Beans

[Martin Kouba]

Dne 16.5.2016 v 10:20 Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a):
>
> Le 16 mai 2016 10:01, "Martin Kouba" <mkouba at redhat.com
> <mailto:mkouba at redhat.com>> a écrit :
>  >
>  > Dne 15.5.2016 v 16:14 John D. Ament napsal(a):
>  > > Hey guys
>  > >
>  > > Seems like we have some issues in JIRA all focused on managing the
>  > > lifecycle of Dependent scoped beans.  It also seems like we have many
>  > > differing opinions about how to manage them.
>  > >
>  > > - Martin raised a PR to add a release() method to Instance to help
>  > > destroy a dependent bean https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/286
>  > > - I raised a PR https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/289 to update the
>  > > spec to clarify how to manage a dependent scoped bean.
>  > >
>  > > Right now, it seems that the big disagreement is whether
>  > > Instance.destroy() can destroy objects not created by it (the case
> being
>  > > around the CDI utility class, being an impl of Instance).  I'm
> currently
>  > > heavily against Martin's proposed changes, but want to get input from
>  > > others on the group to understand their perspective.
>  > >
>  > > - Does the spec require destroy() to be called only on instances
> that it
>  > > created?  When I read 5.6.1 the only requirement I see is that it
> has to
>  > > be a dependent scoped bean.  Note when I ask this I'm asking from the
>  > > spec perspective, its a different problem if there's some issues with
>  > > implementations following suite (I would imagine there needs to be some
>  > > shared global registry of dependent scoped beans for this to work).
>  > >
>  > > - Do we want two methods that effectively do the same thing?  I don't
>  > > see a strong difference between the two.
>  >
>  > Instance.destroy() currently always destroys the contextual instance.
>  > Which is not always what users expect. That's why I proposed to add
>  > Instance.release() - https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/286,
>  > previously Instance.getBean() - https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/273.
>  >
>
> Since you give the instance to both I guess the intention from user
> point of view is obvious and then we dont need 2 methods. What would be
> the other use case?

https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/273#issuecomment-179080614

>
>  > >
>  > > On the flipside, my change is more a spec clarification.  I'm thinking
>  > > more now that it belongs as a reword of 5.6.1 to clarify how to use
>  > > destroy() on dependent beans, rather than where I put it.  I think
>  > > realistically we have all of the tools needed to manage the
> lifecycle of
>  > > these classes, just need to clarify them for people to use.
>  > >
>  > > John
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > _______________________________________________
>  > > cdi-dev mailing list
>  > > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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.
>  > >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Martin Kouba
>  > Software Engineer
>  > Red Hat, Czech Republic
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > cdi-dev mailing list
>  > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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.
>

-- 
Martin Kouba
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Czech Republic