[cdi-dev] Extensions and spec-related observer method injection points question

[Matej Novotny]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>
> To: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn at redhat.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 9:05:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Extensions and spec-related observer method injection points question
> 
> > 
> > While you cannot do this, you can still get hold of BeanManager and use it
> > to resolve your bean.
> 
> No, you cannot. At least not before AfterBeanValidation.

Obviously, but the question assumes the container is in the state where beans are resolvable.
E.g., the question was meant more like "if I can resolve it with BM, why can't I use plain param. injection".

> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> > Am 17.02.2017 um 07:08 schrieb Matej Novotny <manovotn at redhat.com>:
> > 
> > Hi, comment inline.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Laird Nelson" <ljnelson at gmail.com>
> >> To: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:11:41 PM
> >> Subject: [cdi-dev] Extensions and spec-related observer method injection
> >> 	points question
> >> 
> >> This section (
> >> http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/2.0-PFD/cdi-spec.html#init_events ) says:
> >> "If
> >> other beans [other than the BeanManager ] are injected into an [portable]
> >> extension’s observer methods, non-portable behavior results."
> >> 
> >> Rephrased: a portable extension's observer methods must have a minimum of
> >> one
> >> parameter (the event being observed) and a maximum of two parameters (that
> >> plus the BeanManager ), and none other if you want to stay truly portable.
> > 
> > That's correct interpretation.
> > 
> >> For true container lifecycle events, I understand this (you don't have
> >> beans
> >> to inject yet). But given that a bean must be provided by the container
> >> for
> >> a portable extension (
> >> http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/2.0-PFD/cdi-spec.html#init_events ),
> >> wouldn't
> >> it be reasonable to permit extra injection points in a portable
> >> extension's
> >> non -container-lifecycle-event-observing observer methods?
> >> 
> >> Concretely, I'd like to do this:
> >> 
> >> // In my portable extension
> >> private static final void doSomethingAtStartup(@Observes
> >> @Initialized(ApplicationScoped.class) final Object event, final
> >> Frobnicator
> >> someBean) {
> >> someBean.doSomething();
> >> }
> > 
> > While you cannot do this, you can still get hold of BeanManager and use it
> > to resolve your bean.
> > 
> >> 
> >> ...but that would seem to be in violation of the specification. Could
> >> someone
> >> kindly explain why?
> > 
> > Not really sure, perhaps Martin or Antoine can share the details.
> > But I would say this could create quite some confusion if in some observer
> > you could inject certain beans and in others you couldn't.
> > Even in your sample, you can only inject AppScoped beans, so imagine you do
> > such observer for, say, SessionScoped, what can you inject there?
> > SessionScoped for sure, how about Req? Conversation?
> > 
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Best,
> >> Laird
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> 
>