[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2630) Publish a Milestone version of Weld-servlet-core
Title: Message Title Thiago Henrique Hüpner created an issue Weld / WELD-2630 Publish a Milestone version of Weld-servlet-core Issue Type: Feature Request Affects Versions: 4.0.0.Alpha2 Assignee: Unassigned Components: Servlet Container Support Created: 09/Jun/20 10:45 AM Priority: Minor Reporter: Thiago Henrique Hüpner The Weld servlet core version 4.0.0.Alpha2 is not currently published Add Comment
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2628) AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný updated an issue Weld / WELD-2628 AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority Change By: Matěj Novotný Affects Version/s: 4.0.0.Alpha2 Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2628) AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný commented on WELD-2628 Re: AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority Karl von Randow PRs are merged for both, 3.1 and master, thanks for reporting this and contributing! Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2628) AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný updated WELD-2628 Weld / WELD-2628 AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority Change By: Matěj Novotný Status: Pull Request Sent Resolved Resolution: Done Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2628) AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný updated an issue Weld / WELD-2628 AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority Change By: Matěj Novotný Git Pull Request: https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1999 , https://github.com/weld/core/pull/2002 Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2628) AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný updated an issue Weld / WELD-2628 AfterTypeDiscovery added alternative gets ineffective priority Change By: Matěj Novotný Git Pull Request: https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1999 Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-590) Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering
Title: Message Title Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDITCK-590 Re: Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering Matěj Novotný oki, thanks for the clarification on the version. Ok also it is written in the spec but also ok it is wrong so should be fixed, opened https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CDI-746. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-590) Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný commented on CDITCK-590 Re: Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering CDI 2.0.1 does NOT exist, it is a binary version, not a spec fix so it looks ackward, nothing more. All I am saying is that all CDI TCK release in the 2.0.x line correspond (or are aligned with) CDI API 2.0 release. There can be n releases of TCK for 1 release of spec. Though there are limitations on what a TCK release for an already released CDI version can contain. This should be captured in docs inside the TCK. That's how it worked under jboss at least. It is eclipse project now, so the process might differ. Also, what Martin pointed out pretty much settles the discussion. The ordering is given by the spec after all. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-590) Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering
Title: Message Title Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDITCK-590 Re: Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering Matěj Novotný CDI 2.0.1 does NOT exist, it is a binary version, not a spec fix so it looks ackward, nothing more. If you wrap instances it is fine but since PIP is also used to capture injections and beans to add in ABD then you break the container enabling to veto after. All vetos should only be doable before advanced introspection otherwise extensions are very complex to write - not a single one out there works with this paradigm btw, even in DS/MP lands. It also makes extensions + alternatives/specialization quite weirdly behaving so I think veto should be in the first phases then shouldn't be at all. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-590) Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering
Title: Message Title Martin Kouba commented on CDITCK-590 Re: Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering hmm, nowhere it is written that the bullet order must be respected so it is not in the spec IMO. The spec wording is clear. Each bullet sentence in 12.4.4. Bean discovery ends with "and then". Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-590) Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering
Title: Message Title
Matěj Novotný commented on CDITCK-590
Re: Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering
nowhere it is written that the bullet order must be respected so it is not in the spec IMO
I am sorry, but that sounds like a rather poor argument. I am pretty sure you can find other parts in EE specs where you would happily assume ordering based on a written list. For instance Container Lifecycle Events also list certain events under Application lifecycle events, that are fired once. And I think we can all safely "assume" that BeforeBeanDiscovery somehow precedes {{BeforeShutdown }}even though the spec doesn't say that the bullet order must be respected, right? Also, if you twist it around, then having it as the test presumes allows you to introspect and change things around in PIP and PIT and then based on the current state decide whether you want to veto the bean or not inside PBA. This to me sounds a lot more sensible than firing PAT with veto option followed up by PBA with the exact same option when nothing really changes in between.
Not directly linked to this issue but since you mention it: is 2.0.1.Final anything in terms of spec (I can see what it is in terms of artifact release but not spec)?
Not sure I understand what you ask about? There are multiple releases of TCKs for each CDI spec versions. Typically containing new exclusions, test corrections and so on. Take a look here - the 2.0.x TCK version is linked to CDI 2.0. Latest for that version is actually 2.0.7.SP1.
Add Comment
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c)
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-590) Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering
Title: Message Title Romain Manni-Bucau commented on CDITCK-590 Re: Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering Matěj Novotný hmm, nowhere it is written that the bullet order must be respected so it is not in the spec IMO. Then on a functional sense, it is a non-sense to fire PBA after PIP and PIT. PBA is way closer to PAT by the operation it defines and a veto BA must not lead to PIP or PIT so should be just after PAT by design - but I agree it is not explicitly specified today so means PBA before is straight forward for users, PBA after requires extensions to revise the PIT and PIP capture after the whole discovery to be accurate (which is quite complex for nothing IMHO). Not directly linked to this issue but since you mention it: is 2.0.1.Final anything in terms of spec (I can see what it is in terms of artifact release but not spec)? Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2629) ConversationContextDestroyedOnSessionTimeoutTest goes against servlet spec expectations
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný updated WELD-2629 Weld / WELD-2629 ConversationContextDestroyedOnSessionTimeoutTest goes against servlet spec expectations Change By: Matěj Novotný Status: Pull Request Sent Resolved Resolution: Done Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-590) Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný commented on CDITCK-590 Re: Add a test for Bean Discovery which asserts lifecycle event ordering The correct order - as far as I remember it has been discussed originally - is So, I don't know what you discussed and where/when, but current spec wording is pretty straightforward. If you look at Bean discovery section, it defines the ordering for both, class based bean and producer based bean. This exactly corresponds to what the test asserts. Note also, that this TCK test is not part of the official CDI-2.0 JSR but added at a random later point. The "random later point" can be divined from GH commit history - seems this got in with 2.0.1.Final even though the PR linked here was actually closed. Spec lists the needed events but it is not written the order must be this oneSpec lists the needed events but it is not written the order must be this one That's just bending the wording. Is there an actual reason why this ordering is bad? I can't see why you couldn't veto things in PBA with the current ordering, it isn't too late. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c)
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2629) ConversationContextDestroyedOnSessionTimeoutTest goes against servlet spec expectations
Title: Message Title Matěj Novotný updated an issue Weld / WELD-2629 ConversationContextDestroyedOnSessionTimeoutTest goes against servlet spec expectations Change By: Matěj Novotný Git Pull Request: https://github.com/weld/core/pull/2000, https://github.com/weld/core/pull/2001 Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008-sha1:1606a5c) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
