[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] Updated: (AS7-866) WeldBanManagerServiceProcessor is too picky for TorqueBox to integrate with CDI

[Bob McWhirter (JIRA)]

     [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-866?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Bob McWhirter updated AS7-866:
------------------------------

    Summary: WeldBanManagerServiceProcessor is too picky for TorqueBox to integrate with CDI  (was: WeldBanManagerServiceProcessor is too pick for TorqueBox to integrate with CDI)


> WeldBanManagerServiceProcessor is too picky for TorqueBox to integrate with CDI
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: AS7-866
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-866
>             Project: Application Server 7
>          Issue Type: Enhancement
>          Components: CDI / Weld
>            Reporter: Bob McWhirter
>            Assignee: Stuart Douglas
>
> Weld's WeldBeanManagerServiceProcessor is very picky about deploying up a BeanManager for deployments.
> In TorqueBox's case, we don't have an EEModuleDescription, and we don't end-with .war extension.  But we still desire to have the BeanManager deployed.  Don't really care if it's registered in JNDI, I don't think; just an MSC Service<T> should keep our stuff happy.
> Against jboss-as#master as of 22-May, we've had to add our own duplication (of sorts) of WeldBeanManagerServiceProcessor to ensure a BeanManager gets deployed.  We currently install it at +1 the priority of Weld's, to ensure we don't duplicate deployment.
> If weld's WeldBeanManagerServiceProcessor could happily deploy a BeanManager even if EEModuleDescription isn't present, and the deployment doesn't end with .war, that'd be awesome.
> I'm happy to use some WeldDesireToHaveBeanManager.mark( unit ) marker or whatnot, to indicate our needs.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira