Note that the solution Solder provides for this problem is unwrapping producer methods, which are slightly more flexible than a stateless scope.
On 14 Jan 2011, at 22:25, Dan Allen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:24, Clint Popetz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Adam Warski <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > have you considered adding a stateless scope to Weld? > > I've definitely felt the paint of not having this, for all the reasons > stated. > > I agree with both of you and have attempted to defend this position in the > past. I thought using a dependent-scoped bean with Instance<T>#get() would be > sufficient, but I didn't think about the passivation requirement. We need a > truly stateless scope in CDI. I define it as a non-storing context. The > reference is resolved each time the proxy dereferenced (method call). > > -Dan > > -- > Dan Allen > Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action > Registered Linux User #231597 > > http://mojavelinux.com > http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction > http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen > _______________________________________________ > weld-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev _______________________________________________ weld-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
