As a developer that's what I expect sometimes, sometimes not ;). This is really hard to handle all cases so there is no right solution ATM (why spec addressed it).
javax.ejb.Singleton should be closet to what you are looking for, deactivate the transactions and the overhead should be small enough to be ignored compared to a cdi bean. IIRC TomEE merges CDI beans from parent (lib part) and webapps so instances are effectively different (it is like if webapp was containing all libs which sounds close to what is in spec AFAIK but is still ambiguous IMO). That is mandatory for frameworks like DS IIRC. last note: you'll get same issue but @ApplicationScoped is preferred over @Singleton since it is a normal scope (but that's maybe what you wanted). Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/12/28 hasalex <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > The question seems weird, but has been asked on the CDI dev issue tracker : > issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-226. > > I've tested it in TomEE, and it looks like that we can have multiple > instances of a @Singleton in an EAR application. My example is here : > https://github.com/hasalex/tomee-sample/blob/QuestionOnML/tomee-sample-war/src/test/java/fr/sewatech/javaee/example/SingletonTest.java > > The @Singleton injected in the EJB is different from the one injected in the > SessionContextListener. > > As a developer, that was not what I was expecting. So am I wrong or is that > Singleton behaviour strange ? > > Alexis > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/What-is-the-scope-of-a-Singleton-CDI-bean-in-an-EAR-tp4666902.html > Sent from the OpenEJB User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
