I believe all of the selection logic is disabled by default. In other words it doesn't look at the location of the beans.xml to decide which interceptors, decorators & alternatives to use by default. However, there was some plumbing put in to be able to pass that information down into the code, and that plumbing caused at least one problem on a specific application server that Gerhard already fixed.
I would strongly disagree that this is a "feature". I would definitely agree there are different ways to interpret the spec, and I think this code provides a behavior that matches a possible interpretation. Sincerely, Joe Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Gerhard <[email protected]> wrote: > joe told me that there is no impact (per default) and that wasn't correct. > > OWB-472 ("optional support for archive centric beans.xml") looks like a new > feature which shouldn't be in the core. > furthermore, the implementation is also improvable. > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2011/2/13 Eric Covener <[email protected]> > > > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-18 > > > My personal fear is that this will quickly lead to lots of follow up > > failures like one can currently see in glassfish and JBossAS. > > > > The concept or the code we have? What failure in the other servers? > > > > > For getting this done if e.g. an EE server needs to implement the > CDI-1.0 > > spec then this can still be provided via a custom ScannerService Impl, > > isn't? > > > > I don't think so. Without the feature, the core doesn't ask anything > > related to a scanner service about this enablement (IIUC, I'm not > > intimately familiar with this one) > > > > You could stuff more into the ScannerService SPI instead of having it > > split between the extensions to ScannerService and the XMLBDA thing, > > but that seems like a cosmetic distinction. > > >
