[weld-dev] [jsr-299-eg] Maintenance release

[Matt Drees]

Hi all,
See comments below.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> ++  Clarify that scope types should not have members
>
> The spec should mention that @ScopeType annotations should not have
> annotation members. Perhaps this should be a definition error.
> javax.inject.Scope already mentions this.
>

I'm sure you meant @NormalScope.
Can I ask what the motivation is for preventing annotation members on scope
annotations?  I could imagine some custom scopes needing some extra
metadata, and the scope annotation seems like a handy place to put it.


>
>
> ++ Clarify that interceptors/decorators don't apply to producers in
> resolution rules
>
>
I don't understand.  7.2 seems to explicitly state that
interceptors/decorators *do* apply to producer methods.  Can you clarify?



> ++ Producers and beans that are under construction
>
> I think we need the spec to say something about cases where an
> injection point of a bean resolves to a producer method of the same
> bean. The implementation should detect that this is a definition
> error. It shouldn't try to call a producer method on a
> non-fully-initialized bean.
>

This is good, but I think we should be able to say something more general.
We'd also want to outlaw this:

class Foo {
  @Inject @BarProduct Baz;

  @Produces @FooProduct Baz produceBaz() { ... }
}

class Bar {
  @Inject @FooProduct Baz;

  @Produces @BarProduct Baz produceBaz() { ... }
}

So, I think it'd be very helpful to have a section devoted to cyclic
dependencies.  Some kind of cyclic dependencies are ok while others are not,
and I think we can enumerate these.


On a related note, I had asked once about how this is handled:

@RequestScoped
class Foo {
   @Inject Bar bar;

   @PostConstruct void init() {
      bar.doSomething();
   }
   ...
}

@RequestScoped
class Bar
{
   @Inject Foo foo;

   @PostConstruct void init() {
      foo.doSomethingElse();
   }
   ...
}

Is this maintenance release an appropriate time to address this question?
(I haven't yet checked how Weld handles this)


Also, I'm a little surprised your list didn't contain a ConversationManager
API.  Is this too big of a thing for a maintenance release?  It seems pretty
important to me.
And even if we can't address it for the MR, maybe we can at least start a
discussion to nail down the API.  Sooner is better than later, I think.

Thanks,
-Matt


>
> --
> Gavin King
> gavin.king at gmail.com
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
> http://hibernate.org
> http://seamframework.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/attachments/20100102/41f0a3e3/attachment.html