[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-627) fix wording regression for beans.xml alternative check introduced in 1.2

Tomas Remes (JIRA) issues at jboss.org
Thu Sep 8 06:34:00 EDT 2016

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-627?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13290419#comment-13290419 ] 

Tomas Remes commented on CDI-627:

[~antoinesabot-durand] No there is no such test in TCK 1.0 which would assert that application is deployable with listed alternative which was vetoed/excluded in extension.
[~struberg] How it can become a 'candidate' when it's not annotated @Alternative or it's just vetoed? It's just not possible IMO.
bq. So either it originally was an @Alternative, ..

There is no such term or condition. Either it is an alternative or not.

> fix wording regression for beans.xml alternative check introduced in 1.2
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CDI-627
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-627
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Concepts
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.Final
>            Reporter: Mark Struberg
>             Fix For: 2.0 (proposed)
> My scenario is the following:
> I have an @Alternative MockMailService class which should only be used during testing to not send out 5k mails to customers and employees when running the unit and integration test suite.
> {code}
> @Alternative
> @ApplicationScoped
> @Exclude(ifProjectStage=Production.class)
> public class MockMailService implements MailService {...}
> {code}
> Of course I only need to activate it in beans.xml:
> {code}
> <beans>
>   <alternatives>
>     <class>org.acme.MockMailService</class>
>   </alternatives>
> </beans>
> {code}
> This is perfectly fine in CDI 1.0 but might be interpreted as not be allowed in the CDI 1.2 wording paragraph "Declaring selected alternatives for a bean archive".
> Please note that we introduced a check in CDI 1.0 purely to help the customer eagerly detect possible wrong configuration. E.g. if he simply has a typo in the classname. It was _not_ intended to restrict useful use cases!
> What the intention was: all is fine IF one of
> * There exists a class T with the given name
> * That class T (or a contained producer field or producer method) is annotated with @Alternative
> * There is a Bean<T> with isAlternative() == true

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list