You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwebbeans.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2014/12/19 19:19:15 UTC

AfterTypeDiscoveryEvent

Hi guys,

is org.apache.webbeans.config.BeansDeployer#fireAfterTypeDiscoveryEvent
is not correctly implemented?

getXXX() should return "list of enabled XXX" but we return only
@Priority ones + user should be allowed to remove items from the list
but we don't support it.

did I misunderstand it?

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau

Re: AfterTypeDiscoveryEvent

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
FYI org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.atd.AfterTypeDiscoveryTest
don't pass with OWB 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau


2014-12-19 19:19 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> Hi guys,
>
> is org.apache.webbeans.config.BeansDeployer#fireAfterTypeDiscoveryEvent
> is not correctly implemented?
>
> getXXX() should return "list of enabled XXX" but we return only
> @Priority ones + user should be allowed to remove items from the list
> but we don't support it.
>
> did I misunderstand it?
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau

Re: AfterTypeDiscoveryEvent

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
I'm on org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.atd.AfterTypeDiscoveryTest


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau


2014-12-20 9:52 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> which test is this exactly?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Saturday, 20 December 2014, 9:30, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Ok, not yet sure it is the tck issue. Seems we really have a bug with
>> addAnnotatedType forgetting to trigger some event (called too late to be
>> automatic). I ll try to have a look soon but wanted to understand the
>> "wording".
>>
>> Thks Mark
>>
>> Le 19 déc. 2014 23:19, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>  No this is perfectly fine. We discussed this recently and there was a bug
>>>  in Weld. And I guess they just 1:1 moved this bug over to the TCK.
>>>
>>>
>>>  "getAlternatives() returns the ordered list of enabled alternatives
>> for
>>>  the application. Alternative enabled for a bean archive are not included in
>>>  the list."
>>>
>>>  Currently only Alternatives with @Priority are 'enabled alternatives
>> _for
>>>  the application_'! Whereas "Alternative enabled for a bean
>> archive" (means
>>>  via beans.xml) are explicitly NOT enlisted by this method.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Similar wording exists for interceptors and decorators.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Please file a CDITCK issue for it.
>>>
>>>  LieGrue,
>>>  strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  > On Friday, 19 December 2014, 19:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>  rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  > > Hi guys,
>>>  >
>>>  > is
>> org.apache.webbeans.config.BeansDeployer#fireAfterTypeDiscoveryEvent
>>>  > is not correctly implemented?
>>>  >
>>>  > getXXX() should return "list of enabled XXX" but we return
>> only
>>>  > @Priority ones + user should be allowed to remove items from the list
>>>  > but we don't support it.
>>>  >
>>>  > did I misunderstand it?
>>>  >
>>>  > Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>  > @rmannibucau
>>>  > http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>  > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>>>  > https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>  >
>>>
>>

Re: AfterTypeDiscoveryEvent

Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
which test is this exactly?

LieGrue,
strub





> On Saturday, 20 December 2014, 9:30, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, not yet sure it is the tck issue. Seems we really have a bug with
> addAnnotatedType forgetting to trigger some event (called too late to be
> automatic). I ll try to have a look soon but wanted to understand the
> "wording".
> 
> Thks Mark
> 
> Le 19 déc. 2014 23:19, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a 
> écrit :
> 
>>  No this is perfectly fine. We discussed this recently and there was a bug
>>  in Weld. And I guess they just 1:1 moved this bug over to the TCK.
>> 
>> 
>>  "getAlternatives() returns the ordered list of enabled alternatives 
> for
>>  the application. Alternative enabled for a bean archive are not included in
>>  the list."
>> 
>>  Currently only Alternatives with @Priority are 'enabled alternatives 
> _for
>>  the application_'! Whereas "Alternative enabled for a bean 
> archive" (means
>>  via beans.xml) are explicitly NOT enlisted by this method.
>> 
>> 
>>  Similar wording exists for interceptors and decorators.
>> 
>> 
>>  Please file a CDITCK issue for it.
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  > On Friday, 19 December 2014, 19:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>  rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > > Hi guys,
>>  >
>>  > is 
> org.apache.webbeans.config.BeansDeployer#fireAfterTypeDiscoveryEvent
>>  > is not correctly implemented?
>>  >
>>  > getXXX() should return "list of enabled XXX" but we return 
> only
>>  > @Priority ones + user should be allowed to remove items from the list
>>  > but we don't support it.
>>  >
>>  > did I misunderstand it?
>>  >
>>  > Romain Manni-Bucau
>>  > @rmannibucau
>>  > http://www.tomitribe.com
>>  > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>>  > https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>  >
>> 
>

Re: AfterTypeDiscoveryEvent

Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Ok, not yet sure it is the tck issue. Seems we really have a bug with
addAnnotatedType forgetting to trigger some event (called too late to be
automatic). I ll try to have a look soon but wanted to understand the
"wording".

Thks Mark
Le 19 déc. 2014 23:19, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :

> No this is perfectly fine. We discussed this recently and there was a bug
> in Weld. And I guess they just 1:1 moved this bug over to the TCK.
>
>
> "getAlternatives() returns the ordered list of enabled alternatives for
> the application. Alternative enabled for a bean archive are not included in
> the list."
>
> Currently only Alternatives with @Priority are 'enabled alternatives _for
> the application_'! Whereas "Alternative enabled for a bean archive" (means
> via beans.xml) are explicitly NOT enlisted by this method.
>
>
> Similar wording exists for interceptors and decorators.
>
>
> Please file a CDITCK issue for it.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, 19 December 2014, 19:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> >
> > is org.apache.webbeans.config.BeansDeployer#fireAfterTypeDiscoveryEvent
> > is not correctly implemented?
> >
> > getXXX() should return "list of enabled XXX" but we return only
> > @Priority ones + user should be allowed to remove items from the list
> > but we don't support it.
> >
> > did I misunderstand it?
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >
>

Re: AfterTypeDiscoveryEvent

Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
No this is perfectly fine. We discussed this recently and there was a bug in Weld. And I guess they just 1:1 moved this bug over to the TCK. 


"getAlternatives() returns the ordered list of enabled alternatives for the application. Alternative enabled for a bean archive are not included in the list."

Currently only Alternatives with @Priority are 'enabled alternatives _for the application_'! Whereas "Alternative enabled for a bean archive" (means via beans.xml) are explicitly NOT enlisted by this method. 


Similar wording exists for interceptors and decorators.


Please file a CDITCK issue for it.

LieGrue,
strub





> On Friday, 19 December 2014, 19:20, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> 
> is org.apache.webbeans.config.BeansDeployer#fireAfterTypeDiscoveryEvent
> is not correctly implemented?
> 
> getXXX() should return "list of enabled XXX" but we return only
> @Priority ones + user should be allowed to remove items from the list
> but we don't support it.
> 
> did I misunderstand it?
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>