+1
means
@RequestScoped
public class ConversationWrapper {
private @Inject Conversation conv;
@Produces
@Dependent
@Named("conv")
public Conversation getConv() {
return conv;
}
}
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 23:10, Romain Manni-Bucau
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>a producer allows to get a shorter/more elegant naming like #{conv.id} if you
>@Produces @Named("conv") ;)
>
>
>
>Romain Manni-Bucau
>@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Wordpress Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber |
>JavaEE Factory
>
>2016-09-28 23:01 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>:
>
>Oh boy, sorry for you. You did hit a blank spot in the CDI spec.
>>
>>Problem is that the EE umbrella spec, the EL spec and the CDI spec contradict
>>each other.
>>
>>The Weld guys solved this by introducing a Javax class. But that takes away
>>the whole javax.* tree for the EL. That's just not good as it contradicts the
>>EL spec.
>>
>>Could you please try the following
>>
>>@RequestScoped
>>@Named("conversation")
>>public class ConversationWrapper {
>> private @Inject Conversation conv;
>>
>> public Conversation get() {
>> return conv;
>> }
>>}
>>
>>And in the EL just use #{conversation.get.id}
>>
>>LieGrue,
>>strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 22:12, Xavier Dury <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I really don't understand how something like <f:param
>>> name="cid"
>>> value="#{javax.enterprise. context.conversation.id}"/> actually
>>> works... something must be made to make the EL processor accept that invalid
>>> bean name.
>>>
>>> Making a producer which @Produces @Named Conversation conflicts with the
>>> built-in bean from OWB (with WebBeanType.CONVERSATION)...
>>>
>>> ... so, I have done the following for my tests but I feel a bit ashamed
>>> because
>>> I can't imagine there is no better solution than this ;-)
>>>
>>> public class ConversationAliaser {
>>> public class Javax {
>>> public Enterprise getEnterprise() {return new Enterprise();}
>>>
>>> }
>>> public class Enterprise {
>>> public Context getContext() {return new Context();}
>>> }
>>> public class Context {
>>> public Conversation getConversation() {return conversation;}
>>>
>>> }
>>> @Inject
>>> private Conversation conversation;
>>> @Produces @ApplicationScoped @Named("javax")
>>> public Javax javax() {return new Javax();}
>>> }
>>>
>>> But that works!
>>>
>>> Xavier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Xavier Dury <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:42 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: OpenEJB and EL
>>>
>>> Hmmm... I guess I'll have to @Produces @Named the conversation if I want to
>>> use it in ELs. I don't know if something like
>>> #{applicationScope['javax. enterprise.context. conversation'].transient}
>>> would work?
>>>
>>> I remember back in my JSP days that, sometimes, I had to use something like
>>> ${requestScope['javax.servlet. forward.request_uri']} instead of
>>> plain ${javax.servlet.forward. request_uri}.
>>>
>>> Xavier
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 6:54 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: OpenEJB and EL
>>>
>>> hmm, wonder if it is linked to the value you try to evaluate (which doesn't
>>> respect EL spec even if in CDI spec - don't ask please ;)).. See
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/ browse/CDITCK-462 /
>>> http://lists.jboss.org/ pipermail/cdi-dev/2015- January/006009.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/ rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau (@rmannibucau) | Twitter
>>> twitter.com
>>> The latest Tweets from Romain Manni-Bucau (@rmannibucau). ASF / Java(EE) /
>>> Angular. LinkedIn: https://t.co/dX7XMGjbBi. JavaEE Factory:
>>> https://t.co/0VnvWwbedt . Blog ...
>>> <https://blog-rmannibucau. rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress. com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/ rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
>>> <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
>>> <https://javaeefactory- rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
>>>
>>> 2016-09-28 18:17 GMT+02:00 Xavier Dury <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>
>>>> I tried with org.apache.tomcat:tomcat- jasper-el:8.5.5 but it does not
>>>> parse my expression until I change ".transient" by
>>> ".isTransient()" and
>>>> then it gives the same error: javax.el. PropertyNotFoundException:
>>>> ELResolver cannot handle a null base Object with identifier
>>> 'javax'.
>>>>
>>>> Does the EL context need something else than adding the
>>>> BeanManager.getELResolver() to be able to resolve some implicit objects?
>>>> I
>>>> don't understand why it works with ri-1.0.
>>>>
>>>> Xavier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:02 PM
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: OpenEJB and EL
>>>>
>>>> Hi Xavier
>>>>
>>>> On the phone so hard to give you a link bit try using tomcat el impl of
>>>> tomcat 8.5
>>>>
>>>> Le 28 sept. 2016 15:29, "Xavier Dury" <[email protected]>
>>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > I am using OpenEJB for my tests and need support for EL expressions in
>>> my
>>>> > own code.
>>>> >
>>>> > By default, if I do something like this (pay attention to the
>>>> expression):
>>>> >
>>>> > ExpressionFactory factory = beanManager. wrapExpressionFactory(
>>>> > ExpressionFactory.newInstance( ));
>>>> > StandardELContext elContext = new StandardELContext(factory);
>>>> > elContext.addELResolver( beanManager.getELResolver());
>>>> > ValueExpression expression = factory.createValueExpression( elContext,
>>>> > "#{javax.enterprise.context. conversation.transient}",
>>> Boolean.class);
>>>> > expression.getValue(elContext) ;
>>>> >
>>>> > and only add org.apache.tomee:openejb-core: 7.0.1 to my project then I
>>>> get
>>>> > javax.el.ELException: Unable to find ExpressionFactory of type:
>>>> > org.apache.el. ExpressionFactoryImpl
>>>> >
>>>> > if I add org.glassfish:javax.el:3.0.0 then I get javax.el.
>>>> PropertyNotFoundException:
>>>> > ELResolver cannot handle a null base Object with identifier
>>> 'javax'
>>>> >
>>>> > if I switch the EL library to com.sun.el:el-ri:1.0 (+
>>> META-INF/javax.el.
>>>> ExpressionFactory
>>>> > < com.sun.el. ExpressionFactoryImpl) then my expression can be
>>> evaluated
>>>> > but I can't use any new feature of 3.0 (like lambdas)
>>>> >
>>>> > So, either my dependencies are wrong or I am not correctly
>>> initializing
>>>> my
>>>> > factory.
>>>> >
>>>> > Does anybody have an idea?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>> > Xavier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
