[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-741) Clarify: "archive which contains an extension"

[Matej Novotny (Jira)]

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-741?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13683083#comment-13683083 ] 

Matej Novotny commented on CDI-741:
-----------------------------------

That's a bit of a corner case and i would say TCK might not have it on purpose as implementations (or even just integrators) might differ on how they handle this.

I am not defending or deferring either way here but...
* The sole sentence in Section 12.1 doesn't really say anything about having extension registered. 
* Also note that in most EE containers, you will have discovered the extension even without using ServiceLoader mechanics (in WFLY you could simply leverage Jandex for this). So the registration might not be required to decline that archive as bean archive.
* Just out of curiosity, what's the use case for an actual archive to have an extension that isn't registered?

> Clarify: "archive which contains an extension"
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CDI-741
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-741
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Clarification
>          Components: Portable Extensions
>    Affects Versions: 2.0 .Final
>            Reporter: Harald Wellmann
>            Priority: Major
>
> According to Section 12.1,
> {quote}An archive which contains an extension and no beans.xml file is not a bean archive.
> {quote} 
> According to Section 11.5,
> {quote} An extension is a service provider of the service javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension declared in META-INF/services 
> {quote} 
> Conclusion:
> An archive containing a class implementing  {{javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension}} but not declaring this class in {{META-INF/services}} does not contain an extension. 
> So if this archive contains a class with a bean-defining annotation and no {{beans.xml}}, then it is a bean archive.
> The TCK is missing a test for this scenario (archive with extension class but no service registration), it only has a test for the more obvious case of an archive with extension class *and* service registration.
> If my interpretation is correct, then WildFly 15  has a bug, since it disqualifies any archive containing an {{Extension}} class, regardless of the service registration.
> Side note:
> It would be helpful for readers looking for the exact definition of extensions to move the sentence quoted above from Section 11.5 to the introductory paragraph of Section 11.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)