You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwebbeans.apache.org by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> on 2013/04/09 11:17:21 UTC
CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
Hi
In AbstractProducerBean below method is commented out but TCK 1.0 still checks ProducerMethod's Serializable return type and fields.
public void validatePassivationDependencies()
{
// don't call super.validatePassivationDependencies()!
// the injection points of producers are the parameters of the producermethod.
// since CDI-1.1 we must not check those for is serializable anymore.
}
In CDI 1.1 this is corrected but TCK 1.0 still check this. Why is this commented out?
Gurkan
Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
that's the reason why i suggested a (central) spi for such cases.
per default we can pass the tck and then you can decide on your own what
works for you.
(e.g. skipping checks because they are broken or skipping checks e.g. in
project-stage production because they just introduce a significant
overhead).
regards,
gerhard
2013/4/12 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Not nice != broken.
>
> In the case of the serialization rule it was really broken and got
> 'clarified' in cdi-1.1 ;)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
> >
> > hi @ all,
> >
> > we also have other parts which are required by the tck and aren't that
> nice.
> > e.g. the check in EventUtil#checkEventBindings costs quite a lot of
> > performance.
> >
> > imo we should introduce something like a "(Tck)RuleService" which
> > passes
> > the tck by default -> we can provide an implementation which changes such
> > (simple) rules easily.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/4/10 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >
> >> Oki time to explain this now.
> >>
> >>
> >> Think about a method
> >>
> >> @Produces @SessionScoped
> >>
> >> public EntityManager createEM() { return emf.createEntityManager(); }
> >>
> >>
> >> And this would fail, even if the EntityManagerImpl being returned
> might be
> >> perfectly Serializable. This can actually only be verified at runtime
> and
> >> not at scanning time. The only exception is if a return type is final
> - but
> >> then it cannot get proxied anyway...
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >> PS: I would not make a session scoped EM, but thats another story...
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >> > To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
> > <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> >> > Cc:
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:10 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem +
> > validatePassivationDependencies
> >> >
> >> > Don't you remember how many tests we challenged/excluded until the
> > TCK
> >> was
> >> > finally ok?
> >> > Well, this is another of those issues - but it got catched only
> pretty
> >> late.
> >> >
> >> > LieGrue,
> >> > strub
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
> >> > <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>; Mark Struberg
> > <st...@yahoo.de>
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:23 AM
> >> >> Subject: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem +
> > validatePassivationDependencies
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Mark
> >> >>
> >> >> 1.1.8 branch
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Broken means that it is not necessary to pass this in TCK for CDI
> > 1.0,
> >> why
> >> > this test exist in TCK?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thks.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Gurkan
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> Kimden: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >> >> Kime: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
> >> > <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> >> >> Gönderildiği Tarih: 9 Nis 2013 21:47 Salı
> >> >> Konu: Re: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
> >> >>
> >> >> because it's broken!
> >> >> It's broken in the CDI-1.0 spec and we clarified the correct
> > behaviour
> >> > in CDI-1.1.
> >> >>
> >> >> Btw, which branch do you
> >> > speak of?
> >> >>
> >> >> LieGrue,
> >> >> strub
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> >> >>> To: openwebbeans-dev <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> >> >>> Cc:
> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:17 AM
> >> >>> Subject: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem +
> > validatePassivationDependencies
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In AbstractProducerBean below method is commented out but TCK
> > 1.0
> >> still
> >> > checks
> >> >>> ProducerMethod's Serializable return type and fields.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> public void validatePassivationDependencies()
> >> >>> {
> >> >>> // don't call
> > super.validatePassivationDependencies()!
> >> >>>
> >> > // the injection points of producers are the parameters of
> the
> >> >>> producermethod.
> >> >>> // since CDI-1.1 we must not check those for is
> > serializable
> >> > anymore.
> >> >>> }
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In CDI 1.1 this is corrected but TCK 1.0 still check this.
> > Why is this
> >> > commented
> >> >>> out?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Gurkan
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Not nice != broken.
In the case of the serialization rule it was really broken and got 'clarified' in cdi-1.1 ;)
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>
> hi @ all,
>
> we also have other parts which are required by the tck and aren't that nice.
> e.g. the check in EventUtil#checkEventBindings costs quite a lot of
> performance.
>
> imo we should introduce something like a "(Tck)RuleService" which
> passes
> the tck by default -> we can provide an implementation which changes such
> (simple) rules easily.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2013/4/10 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
>> Oki time to explain this now.
>>
>>
>> Think about a method
>>
>> @Produces @SessionScoped
>>
>> public EntityManager createEM() { return emf.createEntityManager(); }
>>
>>
>> And this would fail, even if the EntityManagerImpl being returned might be
>> perfectly Serializable. This can actually only be verified at runtime and
>> not at scanning time. The only exception is if a return type is final - but
>> then it cannot get proxied anyway...
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> PS: I would not make a session scoped EM, but thats another story...
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> > To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
> <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:10 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem +
> validatePassivationDependencies
>> >
>> > Don't you remember how many tests we challenged/excluded until the
> TCK
>> was
>> > finally ok?
>> > Well, this is another of those issues - but it got catched only pretty
>> late.
>> >
>> > LieGrue,
>> > strub
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> ________________________________
>> >> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> >> To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
>> > <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>; Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:23 AM
>> >> Subject: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem +
> validatePassivationDependencies
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Mark
>> >>
>> >> 1.1.8 branch
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Broken means that it is not necessary to pass this in TCK for CDI
> 1.0,
>> why
>> > this test exist in TCK?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thks.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gurkan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________
>> >> Kimden: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> >> Kime: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
>> > <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
>> >> Gönderildiği Tarih: 9 Nis 2013 21:47 Salı
>> >> Konu: Re: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>> >>
>> >> because it's broken!
>> >> It's broken in the CDI-1.0 spec and we clarified the correct
> behaviour
>> > in CDI-1.1.
>> >>
>> >> Btw, which branch do you
>> > speak of?
>> >>
>> >> LieGrue,
>> >> strub
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> >>> To: openwebbeans-dev <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
>> >>> Cc:
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:17 AM
>> >>> Subject: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem +
> validatePassivationDependencies
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi
>> >>>
>> >>> In AbstractProducerBean below method is commented out but TCK
> 1.0
>> still
>> > checks
>> >>> ProducerMethod's Serializable return type and fields.
>> >>>
>> >>> public void validatePassivationDependencies()
>> >>> {
>> >>> // don't call
> super.validatePassivationDependencies()!
>> >>>
>> > // the injection points of producers are the parameters of the
>> >>> producermethod.
>> >>> // since CDI-1.1 we must not check those for is
> serializable
>> > anymore.
>> >>> }
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In CDI 1.1 this is corrected but TCK 1.0 still check this.
> Why is this
>> > commented
>> >>> out?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Gurkan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hi @ all,
we also have other parts which are required by the tck and aren't that nice.
e.g. the check in EventUtil#checkEventBindings costs quite a lot of
performance.
imo we should introduce something like a "(Tck)RuleService" which passes
the tck by default -> we can provide an implementation which changes such
(simple) rules easily.
regards,
gerhard
2013/4/10 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Oki time to explain this now.
>
>
> Think about a method
>
> @Produces @SessionScoped
>
> public EntityManager createEM() { return emf.createEntityManager(); }
>
>
> And this would fail, even if the EntityManagerImpl being returned might be
> perfectly Serializable. This can actually only be verified at runtime and
> not at scanning time. The only exception is if a return type is final - but
> then it cannot get proxied anyway...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> PS: I would not make a session scoped EM, but thats another story...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org" <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
> >
> > Don't you remember how many tests we challenged/excluded until the TCK
> was
> > finally ok?
> > Well, this is another of those issues - but it got catched only pretty
> late.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> >> To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
> > <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:23 AM
> >> Subject: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Mark
> >>
> >> 1.1.8 branch
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Broken means that it is not necessary to pass this in TCK for CDI 1.0,
> why
> > this test exist in TCK?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gurkan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> Kimden: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> >> Kime: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
> > <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> >> Gönderildiği Tarih: 9 Nis 2013 21:47 Salı
> >> Konu: Re: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
> >>
> >> because it's broken!
> >> It's broken in the CDI-1.0 spec and we clarified the correct behaviour
> > in CDI-1.1.
> >>
> >> Btw, which branch do you
> > speak of?
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> >>> To: openwebbeans-dev <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> >>> Cc:
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:17 AM
> >>> Subject: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
> >>>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> In AbstractProducerBean below method is commented out but TCK 1.0
> still
> > checks
> >>> ProducerMethod's Serializable return type and fields.
> >>>
> >>> public void validatePassivationDependencies()
> >>> {
> >>> // don't call super.validatePassivationDependencies()!
> >>>
> > // the injection points of producers are the parameters of the
> >>> producermethod.
> >>> // since CDI-1.1 we must not check those for is serializable
> > anymore.
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In CDI 1.1 this is corrected but TCK 1.0 still check this. Why is this
> > commented
> >>> out?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gurkan
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Oki time to explain this now.
Think about a method
@Produces @SessionScoped
public EntityManager createEM() { return emf.createEntityManager(); }
And this would fail, even if the EntityManagerImpl being returned might be perfectly Serializable. This can actually only be verified at runtime and not at scanning time. The only exception is if a return type is final - but then it cannot get proxied anyway...
LieGrue,
strub
PS: I would not make a session scoped EM, but thats another story...
----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org" <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>
> Don't you remember how many tests we challenged/excluded until the TCK was
> finally ok?
> Well, this is another of those issues - but it got catched only pretty late.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
> <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:23 AM
>> Subject: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>>
>>
>> Hi Mark
>>
>> 1.1.8 branch
>>
>>
>>
>> Broken means that it is not necessary to pass this in TCK for CDI 1.0, why
> this test exist in TCK?
>>
>>
>> Thks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gurkan
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Kimden: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> Kime: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org"
> <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
>> Gönderildiği Tarih: 9 Nis 2013 21:47 Salı
>> Konu: Re: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>>
>> because it's broken!
>> It's broken in the CDI-1.0 spec and we clarified the correct behaviour
> in CDI-1.1.
>>
>> Btw, which branch do you
> speak of?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>>> To: openwebbeans-dev <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:17 AM
>>> Subject: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> In AbstractProducerBean below method is commented out but TCK 1.0 still
> checks
>>> ProducerMethod's Serializable return type and fields.
>>>
>>> public void validatePassivationDependencies()
>>> {
>>> // don't call super.validatePassivationDependencies()!
>>>
> // the injection points of producers are the parameters of the
>>> producermethod.
>>> // since CDI-1.1 we must not check those for is serializable
> anymore.
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> In CDI 1.1 this is corrected but TCK 1.0 still check this. Why is this
> commented
>>> out?
>>>
>>>
>>> Gurkan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Don't you remember how many tests we challenged/excluded until the TCK was finally ok?
Well, this is another of those issues - but it got catched only pretty late.
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org" <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:23 AM
>Subject: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>
>
>Hi Mark
>
>1.1.8 branch
>
>
>
>Broken means that it is not necessary to pass this in TCK for CDI 1.0, why this test exist in TCK?
>
>
>Thks.
>
>
>
>Gurkan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> Kimden: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>Kime: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org" <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
>Gönderildiği Tarih: 9 Nis 2013 21:47 Salı
>Konu: Re: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>
>because it's broken!
>It's broken in the CDI-1.0 spec and we clarified the correct behaviour in CDI-1.1.
>
>Btw, which branch do you
speak of?
>
>LieGrue,
>strub
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> To: openwebbeans-dev <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:17 AM
>> Subject: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> In AbstractProducerBean below method is commented out but TCK 1.0 still checks
>> ProducerMethod's Serializable return type and fields.
>>
>> public void validatePassivationDependencies()
>> {
>> // don't call super.validatePassivationDependencies()!
>>
// the injection points of producers are the parameters of the
>> producermethod.
>> // since CDI-1.1 we must not check those for is serializable anymore.
>> }
>>
>>
>> In CDI 1.1 this is corrected but TCK 1.0 still check this. Why is this commented
>> out?
>>
>>
>> Gurkan
>>
>
>
>
>
Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
Hi Mark
1.1.8 branch
Broken means that it is not necessary to pass this in TCK for CDI 1.0, why this test exist in TCK?
Thks.
Gurkan
________________________________
Kimden: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
Kime: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org" <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
Gönderildiği Tarih: 9 Nis 2013 21:47 Salı
Konu: Re: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
because it's broken!
It's broken in the CDI-1.0 spec and we clarified the correct behaviour in CDI-1.1.
Btw, which branch do you speak of?
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> To: openwebbeans-dev <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:17 AM
> Subject: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>
> Hi
>
> In AbstractProducerBean below method is commented out but TCK 1.0 still checks
> ProducerMethod's Serializable return type and fields.
>
> public void validatePassivationDependencies()
> {
> // don't call super.validatePassivationDependencies()!
> // the injection points of producers are the parameters of the
> producermethod.
> // since CDI-1.1 we must not check those for is serializable anymore.
> }
>
>
> In CDI 1.1 this is corrected but TCK 1.0 still check this. Why is this commented
> out?
>
>
> Gurkan
>
Re: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
because it's broken!
It's broken in the CDI-1.0 spec and we clarified the correct behaviour in CDI-1.1.
Btw, which branch do you speak of?
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> To: openwebbeans-dev <de...@openwebbeans.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:17 AM
> Subject: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies
>
> Hi
>
> In AbstractProducerBean below method is commented out but TCK 1.0 still checks
> ProducerMethod's Serializable return type and fields.
>
> public void validatePassivationDependencies()
> {
> // don't call super.validatePassivationDependencies()!
> // the injection points of producers are the parameters of the
> producermethod.
> // since CDI-1.1 we must not check those for is serializable anymore.
> }
>
>
> In CDI 1.1 this is corrected but TCK 1.0 still check this. Why is this commented
> out?
>
>
> Gurkan
>