[cdi-dev] beans.xml quiz for Friday afternoon

[Tomas Remes]

Comment inline.

T.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Antoine Sabot-Durand" <antoine at sabot-durand.net>
To: "Martin Kouba" <mkouba at redhat.com>
Cc: "cdi-dev" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 3:45:24 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] beans.xml quiz for Friday afternoon

>> Usually I like quizzes, but this one is a bit harsh for a Friday ;).

>> Since the spec doesn’t say anything about xml validation, I don’t think we can take it into consideration for container behaviour.

> Le 21 oct. 2016 à 15:23, Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com> a écrit :
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> today I struggled with weird beans.xml parsing problems and I found out 
> that this part of CDI might deserve some clarification. Below are few 
> examples. And not all of them have obvious interpretation.
> 
> Also note that the spec still contains invalid beans.xml snippets (see 
> also CDI-449).

>> Do you mean, there are still invalid snipers after Tomas PR ?

> 1. empty beans.xml marker file
> - spec VALID, bean-discovey-mode="ALL"
> - XSD validation not needed
> 2. <beans/>
> - spec VALID, bean-discovey-mode="ALL"
> - XSD validation not possible
> 3. <beans xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee">
> - spec VALID, Java EE 6 namespace, ie. CDI 1.0, bean-discovey-mode="ALL"
> - XSD validation OK (against beans_1_0.xsd)
> 
> 4. <beans xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee">
> - spec VALID
> - XSD validation ERROR - Java EE 7 namespace, i.e. CDI 1.1+ and 
> bean-discovey-mode attribute is required
> - note that version is defaulted to "1.1" (and e.g. SAXParser fills this 
> value automatically)
> - what's the correct bean-discovey-mode? => I would expect ANNOTATED 
> because we're in EE 7 and it's the default bean discovery mode
> - bean-discovey-mode attribute is required, not defaulted
> - current Weld behavior: ALL

>> As I said in introduction I don’t think we can take xsd into consideration to decide container behaviour.
>> So IMO here Weld behaviour is the expected one:

>> "A bean archive which contains a beans.xml file with no version has a default bean discovery mode of all"

That was my reasoning as well but note that when you specify beans_1_1.xsd then there is _always_ version 1.1 as Martin pointed out. 

> 
> 5. <beans xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee" version="1.1">
> - spec INVALID, "A bean archive which contains a beans.xml file with 
> version 1.1 (or later) must specify the bean-discovey-mode attribute. 
> The default value for the attribute is annotated."
> - XSD validation ERROR, bean-discovey-mode attribute is required
> - what's the correct bean-discovey-mode? => I would expect ANNOTATED
> - current Weld behavior: ALL

>> IMO, deployment should fail or we should rephrase the spec (backward compatibility?)

> 
> 6. <beans version="1.1">
> - spec INVALID, the same as above
> - XSD validation not possible
> - what's the correct bean-discovey-mode? => I would expect ANNOTATED
> - current Weld behavior: ALL

>> Same as 5 for me

> 
> 7. <beans version="1.1" bean-discovery-mode="annotated">
> - spec VALID, bean-discovey-mode="ANNOTATED"
> - XSD validation not possible
> 

>> NP

> 8. <beans version="1.1" bean-discovery-mode="all" 
> xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee">
> - spec VALID, bean-discovey-mode="ALL"
> - XSD VALID
> 
> 
> We may consider adding default value for bean-discovey-mode, and maybe 
> rewording the spec text. But I'm no XML guru so maybe I'm missing something.

>> Again we don’t have any mention of valid XML file (regarding XSD) in the spec, so there might be a lot of broken beans.xml file around. Making this straight could break these apps.

We don't but we have default version="1.1" in beans_1_1.xsd which makes the situation little bit more complicated. Otherwise I agree.

>> wdyt ?

> Thanks,
> 
> Martin

Antoine
_______________________________________________
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.

-- 
Tomas Remes