> 2* You set ApplicationScopedLiteral to ConversationBean > This is not true, ConversationBean scope must be > RequestScoped. Hmm, where do I do that? I remember that I changed the logic to handle ConversationScoped beans NOT as Dependent beans. In which source is this?
> 3* You add "isDependent" to OwbBean but you do not > implement this in > AbstractInjectionTarget, ProducerFieldBean, EJBean etc. Should be implemented in AbstractOwbBean as default implementation returning false and in AbstractProducerbean, ManagedBean,... to look at the @Dependent scopeType. Maybe I overlooked something in the Bean hierarchy which grow pretty big recently. txs and LieGrue, strub --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> schrieb am Mo, 22.2.2010: > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > Betreff: Recent Commits > An: [email protected] > Datum: Montag, 22. Februar, 2010 16:56 Uhr > Hi Mark; > > You have committed some code over weekend related with > serialization etc. I > have skimmed over some changes. My observations are: > > 1* You treat all beans as passivation capable and saving > info (Changinb > BeanManagerImpl) > I think that this is wrong. You said said in > commit comment : > > This is needed since we also need to serialise proxies of > NormalScoped > > Beans which are not passivating. Imagine an > @ApplicationScoped userService > > gets injected into a @ViewScoped ListModel. > > > > But spec. does not allows this. If you have a > passivating capable and it > contains not passivating capable dependency you have to > throw exception. > (Section 6.6.4) > > 2* You set ApplicationScopedLiteral to ConversationBean > This is not true, ConversationBean scope must be > RequestScoped. > > 3* You add "isDependent" to OwbBean but you do not > implement this in > AbstractInjectionTarget, ProducerFieldBean, EJBean etc. > > Thanks; > > --Gurkan > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com
