[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2393) Order of Portable Extension Events inconsistent with specification
Title: Message Title Charles Honton commented on WELD-2393 Re: Order of Portable Extension Events inconsistent with specification My use is a templated producer. Named annotation is used in two ways: empty name indicates a template parameter or return value for a template producer. non-empty name is used to inject concrete Named instance. 1. Collect all Named injection points. 2. Collect all Named producer templates. 3. Create the type to type graph of producers that will support the required concrete injections. 4. Veto the template producers. 5. Add concrete Named producers (wrapping the template producers) according the above graph. The PP event is needed to obtain the instance producer of the template method. The producer template bean must be vetoed at PBA event. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-584) UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error'
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-584 Re: UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error' Why would one then use @ApplicationScoped on a bean which is not intended to be used in CDI? That makes no sense at all to me. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-584) UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error'
Title: Message Title
Martin Kouba commented on CDITCK-584
Re: UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error'
The point is that theoretically you can have a similar bean:
interface Baz {
void ping();
}
@ApplicationScoped
class Foo implements Baz {}
public final String badMethod() {}; // Makes it unproxyable
public void ping() {};
}
This bean has bean types: Foo and Baz. However, the following use case should work:
class Service {
@Inject
Baz baz; // Inject client proxy for Foo bean instance
void doSomething() {
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2393) Order of Portable Extension Events inconsistent with specification
Title: Message Title Matej Novotny commented on WELD-2393 Re: Order of Portable Extension Events inconsistent with specification I think Charles has a point there, in Weld 3 we seem to fire PBA before PP. A bit of code - PBA seem to be fired here, while PP comes from this part. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-579) CustomBeanImplementationTest relies on unspecified usage of InjectionPoint
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes resolved as Done I disabled the test CDI TCK / CDITCK-579 CustomBeanImplementationTest relies on unspecified usage of InjectionPoint Change By: Tomas Remes Status: Open Resolved Resolution: Done Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-577) org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.definition.bean.BeanDefinitionTest#testRawBeanTypes swallows ParameterizedType
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes resolved as Rejected CDI TCK / CDITCK-577 org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.definition.bean.BeanDefinitionTest#testRawBeanTypes swallows ParameterizedType Change By: Tomas Remes Status: Open Resolved Resolution: Rejected Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-584) UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error'
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-584 Re: UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error' Sorry but I don't agree. Actually I think there is the requirement to test unproxyable bean types during runtime (if there are no injection points for given types) and that's why UnproxyableResolutionException exists. The spec clearly only defines that the validation must happen during bootstrap - but no further behaviour at runtime is specified. I believe this is not true. Why would UnproxyableResolutionException (as defined in 6.5.4. Contextual reference for a bean) exist then? We should open CDI spec clarification issue once there is a disagreement. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-584) UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error'
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-584 Re: UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error' That doesn't define that it's disallowed to detect those issues earlier - during deployment (as required by the spec). That test is illegal anyway. Because if we follow your interpretation then there is NO requirement for testing for unproxyable beans during runtime! The spec clearly only defines that the validation must happen during bootstrap - but no further behaviour at runtime is specified. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-584) UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error'
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-584 Re: UnproxyableManagedBeanTest assumes detection at runtime, but the spec requires a 'deployment error' Well the point is that there are no injection points for the given unproxyable types. So there is no need for injection point resolution to a bean as stated in 3.11 Unproxyable Bean Types: A bean type must be proxyable if an injection point resolves to a bean: • that requires a client proxy, or • that has an associated decorator, or • that has a bound interceptor. Otherwise, the container automatically detects the problem, and treats it as a deployment problem. I think the test is OK. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2393) Order of Portable Extension Events inconsistent with specification
Title: Message Title Martin Kouba commented on WELD-2393 Re: Order of Portable Extension Events inconsistent with specification Hi Charles, thanks for reporting. Could you describe your example in more details, what's the expected behavior etc.? Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
