You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwebbeans.apache.org by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> on 2009/01/13 21:51:43 UTC
XML definition for constructor injection
grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam daemon
--- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Di, 13.1.2009:
> Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Betreff:
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> Hi!
>
> I like to test the constructor injection via XML
> definition.
>
> For what I understand after reading the spec, the following
> should work:
>
> Assume we have the WebBean, _without_ any annotations:
>
> public class TstBeanConstructor
> {
>
> private int i1=0;
> private int i2=0;
>
> public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> {
> this.i1 = i1*100;
> }
>
> public int getI1()
> ...
>
>
> and the XML looks like:
>
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> <RequestScoped/>
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
>
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
>
>
> should this work? At first I was a bit confused about the 2
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is this correct in the
> XML?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
I will dive into the code tonight :)
________________________________
From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:14:47 PM
Subject: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Hiho!
The problem (as far as my still very limited understanding of the internals goes) seems to be that there is no way to store immutable objects (like primitive wrappers) in the XMLInjectionPointModel.
So currently XMLInjectableConstructor#doInject iterates over the parameter list and performs
inject(model.getInjectionClassType(), model.getActualTypeArguments(), anns);
but naturally the InjectionResolver#implResolveByType will fail when it tries to resolve a webbean of type java.lang.Integer (and which value should be taken btw?)
The reason why I think arrays and enums are currently not allowed is because came to this point while debugging:
XLMUtil#getTypeInjectionPointModel
> else if (clazz.isAnnotation() || clazz.isArray() || clazz.isEnum())
> {
> throw new WebBeansConfigurationException(errorMessage + "Java type with name : " + getElementJavaClassName(typeElement) + " must be class or interface type");
> }
Maybe I misinterpreted something. But you do basically also mean that enums and <array>s should work according to the spec?
I pushed my changes to my git repo http://ns1.backwork.net/git
You can checkout the project with
$> git clone http://ns1.backwork.net/git/openwebbeans.git
Then simply move the .git directory to your SVN project folder.
Btw, an official apache git mirror for openwebbeans would be fine if other ones like to use git on top of the SVN checkout too. This is really fine for sharing experimental code branches which one do not like to checkin into SVN.
LieGrue,
strub
--- Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Fr, 16.1.2009:
> Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Freitag, 16. Januar 2009, 7:50
> Hi Mark;
>
> >> E.g. we currently do not allow Enums,
> <Array> and primitive
> wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in constructor
> injection.
>
> Did you look at the XML defined components definitions in
> the svn? I think we supported these issues. You can find the
> necessary artifacts in the following packages in the svn.
>
> XML Defined Beans -->
> java/org/apache/webbeans/component/xml
> XML Constructor Injection -->
> org/apache/webbeans/inject/xml/ ,
> XMLInjectableConstructor.java. In this class you will see
> the constructor parameters as a
> List<XMLInjectionPointModel> where each
> XMLInjectionPointModel holds the xml defined constructor
> parameters properties.
>
> I will create test cases about your concerns today.
>
> /Gurkan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:28:35 PM
> Subject: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
>
> I had long night yesterday and like to share my outcome.
>
> First, big thanks to Gurkan again for being so patient with
> me yesterday ;)
>
> Oki, here is what I guess is the answer to my question in
> form of a patch. I reread the spec and somehow I have the
> gut feeling that either I still do not understand it fully
> (most probably) or the spec is still a bit inconsistent or
> we do have something missing in the implementation yet. E.g.
> we currently do not allow Enums, <Array> and
> primitive wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in
> constructor injection. Whereas the spec states that
> > 10.3.3. Bean constructor declarations -> 10.6
> > 10.6 Injection point declarations -> 10.8
> > 10.8 Specifying bean types and bindings
> > • an element that represents a Java class or
> interface,
> > or <Array> ...
>
> The spec says nothing about real primitive types like int
> though. But this would perfectly make sense to me, like one
> may have an existing service which has to be filled. And all
> the needed functionality is already there for the field
> injection.
>
> Please review the XMLs in the patch if I interpreted the
> spec correctly!
>
> status so far:
> .) The example with invoking
> TstBeanConstructor(CtParameter) works
> .) I have a patch for making the
> TstBeanConstructor(Integer) work, but it's pretty ugly,
> so I will only work on this if you confirm that this use
> case should work according to the spec.
> .) I'm not sure if TstBeanConstructor(int,int) is ok
> for the spec. Doesn't work anyway ;)
>
>
> Another thing I was not really aware of:
> > XML-based bean declarations define additional
> beans—they do not
> > redefine or disable any bean that was declared via
> annotations.
> I always thought the XML based may redefine the beans
> behaviour. E.g. if one bean has a standard scope, I may
> override the scope via XML. Or I may change the injection of
> a service used on a production server. This would really be
> handy in praxis!
>
> txs,
> strub
>
> --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Mi,
> 14.1.2009:
>
> > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 22:56
> > Here is an example of what I like to have:
> >
> > Let's assume I have a _given_
> my.company.ConfigService
> > (and I don't even have the sources) which has NO
> default
> > constructor:
> >
> > public class ConfigService {
> > private int val1=0, val2=0;
> > public ConfigService(int ctParam) { val1=100*ctParam;
> }
> > public setVal2(int val2) { this.val2=val2; }
> > public getVal1...
> > }
> >
> > And I like to have the ConfigService as singleton with
> name
> > "cfgSvc" defined via XML (since there is
> > annotation in the given source).
> >
> > The initialisation should be:
> > 1.) create the ConfigService via it's constructor
> and
> > ctParam=42
> > 2.) call setVal2(666);
> >
> >
> > See what I mean? Is this even possible with the
> > 'flat' structure in the samples of the spec?
> This
> > would not allow to additionally set a value for val2,
> or did
> > I confuse something?
> >
> > How must the XML look like according to the spec?
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am
> Mi,
> > 14.1.2009:
> >
> > > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor
> injection
> > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 11:32
> > > Hi Gurkan!
> > >
> > > > the immediate children of the XML bean
> > declaration
> > > I also understood it this way when I first read
> the
> > spec.
> > >
> > > from the spec:
> > > > For a simple bean defined using XML, the
> bean
> > > constructor may be
> > > > specified by listing the parameter types of
> the
> > > constructer, in
> > > > order, as direct children of the element
> that
> > declares
> > > the bean.
> > >
> > > But on the other hand it was not really clear to
> me if
> > the
> > > examples given in the spec are _with_ or
> _without_ the
> > bean
> > > declaration itself (outer
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > in my example)!
> > >
> > > If we interpret it your way, then no
> 'mixed'
> > > scenario like the following would work:
> > >
> > > I like to have a @Named(value="config")
> > > @SessionScoped TstBeanConstructor PLUS I like to
> > inject the
> > > value 7 in setI2.
> > >
> > > How can this be achieved if there is no
> separation
> > between
> > > the constructor parameters and the additionally
> > injected
> > > ones?
> > >
> > > Maybe this is not needed? Or it's a
> shortcoming of
> > the
> > > spec? Or I'm completely confused? :)
> > >
> > > How I would write the XML (assuming a ct public
> > > TstBeanConstructor(int ctParam) { ... ):
> > >
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <Named>config</Named>
> > > <SessionScoped/>
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> <myapp:ctParam>42</myapp:ctParam>
> >
> > >
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <myapp:i2>7</myapp:i1>
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu
> <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > schrieb
> > > am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> > >
> > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu
> > <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor
> > injection
> > > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 8:14
> > > > Hi Mark;
> > > >
> > > > Your XML definition is not correct, I think.
> > > Specification
> > > > says that, the immediate children of the XML
> bean
> > > > declaration which correspond to *Java Type*
> is
> > > captured as
> > > > a *parameters* of this constructor. So the
> > correct XML
> > > > definition may be written as;
> > > >
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > > <lang: Integer/>
> > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > >
> > > > where *lang* is the namespace that
> corresponds to
> > the
> > > > *java.lang* package. You are able to give
> any
> > > namespace
> > > > instead of *lang*.
> > > >
> > > > When the container creates this bean
> instance, it
> > will
> > > > inject the constructor parameter with
> looking the
> > > beans with
> > > > API type *Integer* and Binding Type
> *@Current*.
> > If it
> > > finds
> > > > the bean successfully, it injects its
> current
> > > instance.
> > > >
> > > > For example, lets say that we define
> producer
> > method
> > > in
> > > > other bean class (MyOtherBean) .
> > > >
> > > > class MyOtherBean
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > @RequestScoped @Produces
> > > > public int
> getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue()
> > > > {
> > > > return 12;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > Then, container calls this method via its
> parent
> > bean
> > > > instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the
> resulted
> > > instance
> > > > (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor.
> > > >
> > > > I did not try to execute this sample, but I
> think
> > it
> > > works.
> > > >
> > > > Please look at the specification that
> contains
> > full
> > > > explanation of the XML defined constructor
> > > declaration.
> > > >
> > > > /Gurkan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM
> > > > Subject: XML definition for constructor
> injection
> >
> > > >
> > > > grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam
> daemon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > schrieb am
> > > Di,
> > > > 13.1.2009:
> > > >
> > > > > Von: Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > > Betreff:
> > > > > An:
> openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > I like to test the constructor
> injection via
> > XML
> > > > > definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > For what I understand after reading the
> > spec, the
> > > > following
> > > > > should work:
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume we have the WebBean, _without_
> any
> > > annotations:
> > > > >
> > > > > public class TstBeanConstructor
> > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > private int i1=0;
> > > > > private int i2=0;
> > > > >
> > > > > public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> > > > > {
> > > > > this.i1 = i1*100;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > public int getI1()
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and the XML looks like:
> > > > >
> > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > > >
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > >
> > <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > should this work? At first I was a bit
> > confused
> > > about
> > > > the 2
> > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is
> this
> > correct
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > XML?
> > > > >
> > > > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > > > strub
Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Hiho!
The problem (as far as my still very limited understanding of the internals goes) seems to be that there is no way to store immutable objects (like primitive wrappers) in the XMLInjectionPointModel.
So currently XMLInjectableConstructor#doInject iterates over the parameter list and performs
inject(model.getInjectionClassType(), model.getActualTypeArguments(), anns);
but naturally the InjectionResolver#implResolveByType will fail when it tries to resolve a webbean of type java.lang.Integer (and which value should be taken btw?)
The reason why I think arrays and enums are currently not allowed is because came to this point while debugging:
XLMUtil#getTypeInjectionPointModel
> else if (clazz.isAnnotation() || clazz.isArray() || clazz.isEnum())
> {
> throw new WebBeansConfigurationException(errorMessage + "Java type with name : " + getElementJavaClassName(typeElement) + " must be class or interface type");
> }
Maybe I misinterpreted something. But you do basically also mean that enums and <array>s should work according to the spec?
I pushed my changes to my git repo http://ns1.backwork.net/git
You can checkout the project with
$> git clone http://ns1.backwork.net/git/openwebbeans.git
Then simply move the .git directory to your SVN project folder.
Btw, an official apache git mirror for openwebbeans would be fine if other ones like to use git on top of the SVN checkout too. This is really fine for sharing experimental code branches which one do not like to checkin into SVN.
LieGrue,
strub
--- Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Fr, 16.1.2009:
> Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Freitag, 16. Januar 2009, 7:50
> Hi Mark;
>
> >> E.g. we currently do not allow Enums,
> <Array> and primitive
> wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in constructor
> injection.
>
> Did you look at the XML defined components definitions in
> the svn? I think we supported these issues. You can find the
> necessary artifacts in the following packages in the svn.
>
> XML Defined Beans -->
> java/org/apache/webbeans/component/xml
> XML Constructor Injection -->
> org/apache/webbeans/inject/xml/ ,
> XMLInjectableConstructor.java. In this class you will see
> the constructor parameters as a
> List<XMLInjectionPointModel> where each
> XMLInjectionPointModel holds the xml defined constructor
> parameters properties.
>
> I will create test cases about your concerns today.
>
> /Gurkan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:28:35 PM
> Subject: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
>
> I had long night yesterday and like to share my outcome.
>
> First, big thanks to Gurkan again for being so patient with
> me yesterday ;)
>
> Oki, here is what I guess is the answer to my question in
> form of a patch. I reread the spec and somehow I have the
> gut feeling that either I still do not understand it fully
> (most probably) or the spec is still a bit inconsistent or
> we do have something missing in the implementation yet. E.g.
> we currently do not allow Enums, <Array> and
> primitive wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in
> constructor injection. Whereas the spec states that
> > 10.3.3. Bean constructor declarations -> 10.6
> > 10.6 Injection point declarations -> 10.8
> > 10.8 Specifying bean types and bindings
> > • an element that represents a Java class or
> interface,
> > or <Array> ...
>
> The spec says nothing about real primitive types like int
> though. But this would perfectly make sense to me, like one
> may have an existing service which has to be filled. And all
> the needed functionality is already there for the field
> injection.
>
> Please review the XMLs in the patch if I interpreted the
> spec correctly!
>
> status so far:
> .) The example with invoking
> TstBeanConstructor(CtParameter) works
> .) I have a patch for making the
> TstBeanConstructor(Integer) work, but it's pretty ugly,
> so I will only work on this if you confirm that this use
> case should work according to the spec.
> .) I'm not sure if TstBeanConstructor(int,int) is ok
> for the spec. Doesn't work anyway ;)
>
>
> Another thing I was not really aware of:
> > XML-based bean declarations define additional
> beans—they do not
> > redefine or disable any bean that was declared via
> annotations.
> I always thought the XML based may redefine the beans
> behaviour. E.g. if one bean has a standard scope, I may
> override the scope via XML. Or I may change the injection of
> a service used on a production server. This would really be
> handy in praxis!
>
> txs,
> strub
>
> --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Mi,
> 14.1.2009:
>
> > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 22:56
> > Here is an example of what I like to have:
> >
> > Let's assume I have a _given_
> my.company.ConfigService
> > (and I don't even have the sources) which has NO
> default
> > constructor:
> >
> > public class ConfigService {
> > private int val1=0, val2=0;
> > public ConfigService(int ctParam) { val1=100*ctParam;
> }
> > public setVal2(int val2) { this.val2=val2; }
> > public getVal1...
> > }
> >
> > And I like to have the ConfigService as singleton with
> name
> > "cfgSvc" defined via XML (since there is
> > annotation in the given source).
> >
> > The initialisation should be:
> > 1.) create the ConfigService via it's constructor
> and
> > ctParam=42
> > 2.) call setVal2(666);
> >
> >
> > See what I mean? Is this even possible with the
> > 'flat' structure in the samples of the spec?
> This
> > would not allow to additionally set a value for val2,
> or did
> > I confuse something?
> >
> > How must the XML look like according to the spec?
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am
> Mi,
> > 14.1.2009:
> >
> > > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor
> injection
> > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 11:32
> > > Hi Gurkan!
> > >
> > > > the immediate children of the XML bean
> > declaration
> > > I also understood it this way when I first read
> the
> > spec.
> > >
> > > from the spec:
> > > > For a simple bean defined using XML, the
> bean
> > > constructor may be
> > > > specified by listing the parameter types of
> the
> > > constructer, in
> > > > order, as direct children of the element
> that
> > declares
> > > the bean.
> > >
> > > But on the other hand it was not really clear to
> me if
> > the
> > > examples given in the spec are _with_ or
> _without_ the
> > bean
> > > declaration itself (outer
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > in my example)!
> > >
> > > If we interpret it your way, then no
> 'mixed'
> > > scenario like the following would work:
> > >
> > > I like to have a @Named(value="config")
> > > @SessionScoped TstBeanConstructor PLUS I like to
> > inject the
> > > value 7 in setI2.
> > >
> > > How can this be achieved if there is no
> separation
> > between
> > > the constructor parameters and the additionally
> > injected
> > > ones?
> > >
> > > Maybe this is not needed? Or it's a
> shortcoming of
> > the
> > > spec? Or I'm completely confused? :)
> > >
> > > How I would write the XML (assuming a ct public
> > > TstBeanConstructor(int ctParam) { ... ):
> > >
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <Named>config</Named>
> > > <SessionScoped/>
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> <myapp:ctParam>42</myapp:ctParam>
> >
> > >
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <myapp:i2>7</myapp:i1>
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu
> <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > schrieb
> > > am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> > >
> > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu
> > <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor
> > injection
> > > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 8:14
> > > > Hi Mark;
> > > >
> > > > Your XML definition is not correct, I think.
> > > Specification
> > > > says that, the immediate children of the XML
> bean
> > > > declaration which correspond to *Java Type*
> is
> > > captured as
> > > > a *parameters* of this constructor. So the
> > correct XML
> > > > definition may be written as;
> > > >
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > > <lang: Integer/>
> > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > >
> > > > where *lang* is the namespace that
> corresponds to
> > the
> > > > *java.lang* package. You are able to give
> any
> > > namespace
> > > > instead of *lang*.
> > > >
> > > > When the container creates this bean
> instance, it
> > will
> > > > inject the constructor parameter with
> looking the
> > > beans with
> > > > API type *Integer* and Binding Type
> *@Current*.
> > If it
> > > finds
> > > > the bean successfully, it injects its
> current
> > > instance.
> > > >
> > > > For example, lets say that we define
> producer
> > method
> > > in
> > > > other bean class (MyOtherBean) .
> > > >
> > > > class MyOtherBean
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > @RequestScoped @Produces
> > > > public int
> getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue()
> > > > {
> > > > return 12;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > Then, container calls this method via its
> parent
> > bean
> > > > instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the
> resulted
> > > instance
> > > > (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor.
> > > >
> > > > I did not try to execute this sample, but I
> think
> > it
> > > works.
> > > >
> > > > Please look at the specification that
> contains
> > full
> > > > explanation of the XML defined constructor
> > > declaration.
> > > >
> > > > /Gurkan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM
> > > > Subject: XML definition for constructor
> injection
> >
> > > >
> > > > grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam
> daemon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > schrieb am
> > > Di,
> > > > 13.1.2009:
> > > >
> > > > > Von: Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > > Betreff:
> > > > > An:
> openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > I like to test the constructor
> injection via
> > XML
> > > > > definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > For what I understand after reading the
> > spec, the
> > > > following
> > > > > should work:
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume we have the WebBean, _without_
> any
> > > annotations:
> > > > >
> > > > > public class TstBeanConstructor
> > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > private int i1=0;
> > > > > private int i2=0;
> > > > >
> > > > > public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> > > > > {
> > > > > this.i1 = i1*100;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > public int getI1()
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and the XML looks like:
> > > > >
> > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > > >
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > >
> > <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > should this work? At first I was a bit
> > confused
> > > about
> > > > the 2
> > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is
> this
> > correct
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > XML?
> > > > >
> > > > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > > > strub
Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
Hi Mark;
>> E.g. we currently do not allow Enums, <Array> and primitive
wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in constructor injection.
Did you look at the XML defined components definitions in the svn? I think we supported these issues. You can find the necessary artifacts in the following packages in the svn.
XML Defined Beans --> java/org/apache/webbeans/component/xml
XML Constructor Injection --> org/apache/webbeans/inject/xml/ , XMLInjectableConstructor.java. In this class you will see the constructor parameters as a List<XMLInjectionPointModel> where each XMLInjectionPointModel holds the xml defined constructor parameters properties.
I will create test cases about your concerns today.
/Gurkan
________________________________
From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:28:35 PM
Subject: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
I had long night yesterday and like to share my outcome.
First, big thanks to Gurkan again for being so patient with me yesterday ;)
Oki, here is what I guess is the answer to my question in form of a patch. I reread the spec and somehow I have the gut feeling that either I still do not understand it fully (most probably) or the spec is still a bit inconsistent or we do have something missing in the implementation yet. E.g. we currently do not allow Enums, <Array> and primitive wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in constructor injection. Whereas the spec states that
> 10.3.3. Bean constructor declarations -> 10.6
> 10.6 Injection point declarations -> 10.8
> 10.8 Specifying bean types and bindings
> • an element that represents a Java class or interface,
> or <Array> ...
The spec says nothing about real primitive types like int though. But this would perfectly make sense to me, like one may have an existing service which has to be filled. And all the needed functionality is already there for the field injection.
Please review the XMLs in the patch if I interpreted the spec correctly!
status so far:
.) The example with invoking TstBeanConstructor(CtParameter) works
.) I have a patch for making the TstBeanConstructor(Integer) work, but it's pretty ugly, so I will only work on this if you confirm that this use case should work according to the spec.
.) I'm not sure if TstBeanConstructor(int,int) is ok for the spec. Doesn't work anyway ;)
Another thing I was not really aware of:
> XML-based bean declarations define additional beans—they do not
> redefine or disable any bean that was declared via annotations.
I always thought the XML based may redefine the beans behaviour. E.g. if one bean has a standard scope, I may override the scope via XML. Or I may change the injection of a service used on a production server. This would really be handy in praxis!
txs,
strub
--- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 22:56
> Here is an example of what I like to have:
>
> Let's assume I have a _given_ my.company.ConfigService
> (and I don't even have the sources) which has NO default
> constructor:
>
> public class ConfigService {
> private int val1=0, val2=0;
> public ConfigService(int ctParam) { val1=100*ctParam; }
> public setVal2(int val2) { this.val2=val2; }
> public getVal1...
> }
>
> And I like to have the ConfigService as singleton with name
> "cfgSvc" defined via XML (since there is
> annotation in the given source).
>
> The initialisation should be:
> 1.) create the ConfigService via it's constructor and
> ctParam=42
> 2.) call setVal2(666);
>
>
> See what I mean? Is this even possible with the
> 'flat' structure in the samples of the spec? This
> would not allow to additionally set a value for val2, or did
> I confuse something?
>
> How must the XML look like according to the spec?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Mi,
> 14.1.2009:
>
> > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 11:32
> > Hi Gurkan!
> >
> > > the immediate children of the XML bean
> declaration
> > I also understood it this way when I first read the
> spec.
> >
> > from the spec:
> > > For a simple bean defined using XML, the bean
> > constructor may be
> > > specified by listing the parameter types of the
> > constructer, in
> > > order, as direct children of the element that
> declares
> > the bean.
> >
> > But on the other hand it was not really clear to me if
> the
> > examples given in the spec are _with_ or _without_ the
> bean
> > declaration itself (outer
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > in my example)!
> >
> > If we interpret it your way, then no 'mixed'
> > scenario like the following would work:
> >
> > I like to have a @Named(value="config")
> > @SessionScoped TstBeanConstructor PLUS I like to
> inject the
> > value 7 in setI2.
> >
> > How can this be achieved if there is no separation
> between
> > the constructor parameters and the additionally
> injected
> > ones?
> >
> > Maybe this is not needed? Or it's a shortcoming of
> the
> > spec? Or I'm completely confused? :)
> >
> > How I would write the XML (assuming a ct public
> > TstBeanConstructor(int ctParam) { ... ):
> >
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <Named>config</Named>
> > <SessionScoped/>
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <myapp:ctParam>42</myapp:ctParam>
>
> >
> > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <myapp:i2>7</myapp:i1>
> > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> schrieb
> > am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> >
> > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu
> <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor
> injection
> > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 8:14
> > > Hi Mark;
> > >
> > > Your XML definition is not correct, I think.
> > Specification
> > > says that, the immediate children of the XML bean
> > > declaration which correspond to *Java Type* is
> > captured as
> > > a *parameters* of this constructor. So the
> correct XML
> > > definition may be written as;
> > >
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > <lang: Integer/>
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> > > where *lang* is the namespace that corresponds to
> the
> > > *java.lang* package. You are able to give any
> > namespace
> > > instead of *lang*.
> > >
> > > When the container creates this bean instance, it
> will
> > > inject the constructor parameter with looking the
> > beans with
> > > API type *Integer* and Binding Type *@Current*.
> If it
> > finds
> > > the bean successfully, it injects its current
> > instance.
> > >
> > > For example, lets say that we define producer
> method
> > in
> > > other bean class (MyOtherBean) .
> > >
> > > class MyOtherBean
> > > {
> > >
> > > @RequestScoped @Produces
> > > public int getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue()
> > > {
> > > return 12;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > Then, container calls this method via its parent
> bean
> > > instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the resulted
> > instance
> > > (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor.
> > >
> > > I did not try to execute this sample, but I think
> it
> > works.
> > >
> > > Please look at the specification that contains
> full
> > > explanation of the XML defined constructor
> > declaration.
> > >
> > > /Gurkan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM
> > > Subject: XML definition for constructor injection
>
> > >
> > > grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam daemon
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> schrieb am
> > Di,
> > > 13.1.2009:
> > >
> > > > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > Betreff:
> > > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > I like to test the constructor injection via
> XML
> > > > definition.
> > > >
> > > > For what I understand after reading the
> spec, the
> > > following
> > > > should work:
> > > >
> > > > Assume we have the WebBean, _without_ any
> > annotations:
> > > >
> > > > public class TstBeanConstructor
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > private int i1=0;
> > > > private int i2=0;
> > > >
> > > > public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> > > > {
> > > > this.i1 = i1*100;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > public int getI1()
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and the XML looks like:
> > > >
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > >
> <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > should this work? At first I was a bit
> confused
> > about
> > > the 2
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is this
> correct
> > in
> > > the
> > > > XML?
> > > >
> > > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > > strub
Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
yup, forgot to mention: please do not apply the patch to SVN yet, this is only ment for looking at the XMLs.
LieGrue,
strub
--- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Do, 15.1.2009:
> Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2009, 20:28
> I had long night yesterday and like to share my outcome.
>
> First, big thanks to Gurkan again for being so patient with
> me yesterday ;)
>
> Oki, here is what I guess is the answer to my question in
> form of a patch. I reread the spec and somehow I have the
> gut feeling that either I still do not understand it fully
> (most probably) or the spec is still a bit inconsistent or
> we do have something missing in the implementation yet. E.g.
> we currently do not allow Enums, <Array> and
> primitive wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in
> constructor injection. Whereas the spec states that
> > 10.3.3. Bean constructor declarations -> 10.6
> > 10.6 Injection point declarations -> 10.8
> > 10.8 Specifying bean types and bindings
> > • an element that represents a Java class or
> interface,
> > or <Array> ...
>
> The spec says nothing about real primitive types like int
> though. But this would perfectly make sense to me, like one
> may have an existing service which has to be filled. And all
> the needed functionality is already there for the field
> injection.
>
> Please review the XMLs in the patch if I interpreted the
> spec correctly!
>
> status so far:
> .) The example with invoking
> TstBeanConstructor(CtParameter) works
> .) I have a patch for making the
> TstBeanConstructor(Integer) work, but it's pretty ugly,
> so I will only work on this if you confirm that this use
> case should work according to the spec.
> .) I'm not sure if TstBeanConstructor(int,int) is ok
> for the spec. Doesn't work anyway ;)
>
>
> Another thing I was not really aware of:
> > XML-based bean declarations define additional
> beans—they do not
> > redefine or disable any bean that was declared via
> annotations.
> I always thought the XML based may redefine the beans
> behaviour. E.g. if one bean has a standard scope, I may
> override the scope via XML. Or I may change the injection of
> a service used on a production server. This would really be
> handy in praxis!
>
> txs,
> strub
>
> --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Mi,
> 14.1.2009:
>
> > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 22:56
> > Here is an example of what I like to have:
> >
> > Let's assume I have a _given_
> my.company.ConfigService
> > (and I don't even have the sources) which has NO
> default
> > constructor:
> >
> > public class ConfigService {
> > private int val1=0, val2=0;
> > public ConfigService(int ctParam) { val1=100*ctParam;
> }
> > public setVal2(int val2) { this.val2=val2; }
> > public getVal1...
> > }
> >
> > And I like to have the ConfigService as singleton with
> name
> > "cfgSvc" defined via XML (since there is
> > annotation in the given source).
> >
> > The initialisation should be:
> > 1.) create the ConfigService via it's constructor
> and
> > ctParam=42
> > 2.) call setVal2(666);
> >
> >
> > See what I mean? Is this even possible with the
> > 'flat' structure in the samples of the spec?
> This
> > would not allow to additionally set a value for val2,
> or did
> > I confuse something?
> >
> > How must the XML look like according to the spec?
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am
> Mi,
> > 14.1.2009:
> >
> > > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor
> injection
> > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 11:32
> > > Hi Gurkan!
> > >
> > > > the immediate children of the XML bean
> > declaration
> > > I also understood it this way when I first read
> the
> > spec.
> > >
> > > from the spec:
> > > > For a simple bean defined using XML, the
> bean
> > > constructor may be
> > > > specified by listing the parameter types of
> the
> > > constructer, in
> > > > order, as direct children of the element
> that
> > declares
> > > the bean.
> > >
> > > But on the other hand it was not really clear to
> me if
> > the
> > > examples given in the spec are _with_ or
> _without_ the
> > bean
> > > declaration itself (outer
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > in my example)!
> > >
> > > If we interpret it your way, then no
> 'mixed'
> > > scenario like the following would work:
> > >
> > > I like to have a @Named(value="config")
> > > @SessionScoped TstBeanConstructor PLUS I like to
> > inject the
> > > value 7 in setI2.
> > >
> > > How can this be achieved if there is no
> separation
> > between
> > > the constructor parameters and the additionally
> > injected
> > > ones?
> > >
> > > Maybe this is not needed? Or it's a
> shortcoming of
> > the
> > > spec? Or I'm completely confused? :)
> > >
> > > How I would write the XML (assuming a ct public
> > > TstBeanConstructor(int ctParam) { ... ):
> > >
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <Named>config</Named>
> > > <SessionScoped/>
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> <myapp:ctParam>42</myapp:ctParam>
> >
> > >
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <myapp:i2>7</myapp:i1>
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu
> <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > schrieb
> > > am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> > >
> > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu
> > <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor
> > injection
> > > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 8:14
> > > > Hi Mark;
> > > >
> > > > Your XML definition is not correct, I think.
> > > Specification
> > > > says that, the immediate children of the XML
> bean
> > > > declaration which correspond to *Java Type*
> is
> > > captured as
> > > > a *parameters* of this constructor. So the
> > correct XML
> > > > definition may be written as;
> > > >
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > > <lang: Integer/>
> > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > >
> > > > where *lang* is the namespace that
> corresponds to
> > the
> > > > *java.lang* package. You are able to give
> any
> > > namespace
> > > > instead of *lang*.
> > > >
> > > > When the container creates this bean
> instance, it
> > will
> > > > inject the constructor parameter with
> looking the
> > > beans with
> > > > API type *Integer* and Binding Type
> *@Current*.
> > If it
> > > finds
> > > > the bean successfully, it injects its
> current
> > > instance.
> > > >
> > > > For example, lets say that we define
> producer
> > method
> > > in
> > > > other bean class (MyOtherBean) .
> > > >
> > > > class MyOtherBean
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > @RequestScoped @Produces
> > > > public int
> getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue()
> > > > {
> > > > return 12;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > Then, container calls this method via its
> parent
> > bean
> > > > instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the
> resulted
> > > instance
> > > > (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor.
> > > >
> > > > I did not try to execute this sample, but I
> think
> > it
> > > works.
> > > >
> > > > Please look at the specification that
> contains
> > full
> > > > explanation of the XML defined constructor
> > > declaration.
> > > >
> > > > /Gurkan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM
> > > > Subject: XML definition for constructor
> injection
> >
> > > >
> > > > grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam
> daemon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > schrieb am
> > > Di,
> > > > 13.1.2009:
> > > >
> > > > > Von: Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > > Betreff:
> > > > > An:
> openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > I like to test the constructor
> injection via
> > XML
> > > > > definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > For what I understand after reading the
> > spec, the
> > > > following
> > > > > should work:
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume we have the WebBean, _without_
> any
> > > annotations:
> > > > >
> > > > > public class TstBeanConstructor
> > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > private int i1=0;
> > > > > private int i2=0;
> > > > >
> > > > > public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> > > > > {
> > > > > this.i1 = i1*100;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > public int getI1()
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and the XML looks like:
> > > > >
> > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > > >
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > >
> > <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > should this work? At first I was a bit
> > confused
> > > about
> > > > the 2
> > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is
> this
> > correct
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > XML?
> > > > >
> > > > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > > > strub
Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I had long night yesterday and like to share my outcome.
First, big thanks to Gurkan again for being so patient with me yesterday ;)
Oki, here is what I guess is the answer to my question in form of a patch. I reread the spec and somehow I have the gut feeling that either I still do not understand it fully (most probably) or the spec is still a bit inconsistent or we do have something missing in the implementation yet. E.g. we currently do not allow Enums, <Array> and primitive wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in constructor injection. Whereas the spec states that
> 10.3.3. Bean constructor declarations -> 10.6
> 10.6 Injection point declarations -> 10.8
> 10.8 Specifying bean types and bindings
> • an element that represents a Java class or interface,
> or <Array> ...
The spec says nothing about real primitive types like int though. But this would perfectly make sense to me, like one may have an existing service which has to be filled. And all the needed functionality is already there for the field injection.
Please review the XMLs in the patch if I interpreted the spec correctly!
status so far:
.) The example with invoking TstBeanConstructor(CtParameter) works
.) I have a patch for making the TstBeanConstructor(Integer) work, but it's pretty ugly, so I will only work on this if you confirm that this use case should work according to the spec.
.) I'm not sure if TstBeanConstructor(int,int) is ok for the spec. Doesn't work anyway ;)
Another thing I was not really aware of:
> XML-based bean declarations define additional beans—they do not
> redefine or disable any bean that was declared via annotations.
I always thought the XML based may redefine the beans behaviour. E.g. if one bean has a standard scope, I may override the scope via XML. Or I may change the injection of a service used on a production server. This would really be handy in praxis!
txs,
strub
--- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 22:56
> Here is an example of what I like to have:
>
> Let's assume I have a _given_ my.company.ConfigService
> (and I don't even have the sources) which has NO default
> constructor:
>
> public class ConfigService {
> private int val1=0, val2=0;
> public ConfigService(int ctParam) { val1=100*ctParam; }
> public setVal2(int val2) { this.val2=val2; }
> public getVal1...
> }
>
> And I like to have the ConfigService as singleton with name
> "cfgSvc" defined via XML (since there is
> annotation in the given source).
>
> The initialisation should be:
> 1.) create the ConfigService via it's constructor and
> ctParam=42
> 2.) call setVal2(666);
>
>
> See what I mean? Is this even possible with the
> 'flat' structure in the samples of the spec? This
> would not allow to additionally set a value for val2, or did
> I confuse something?
>
> How must the XML look like according to the spec?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Mi,
> 14.1.2009:
>
> > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 11:32
> > Hi Gurkan!
> >
> > > the immediate children of the XML bean
> declaration
> > I also understood it this way when I first read the
> spec.
> >
> > from the spec:
> > > For a simple bean defined using XML, the bean
> > constructor may be
> > > specified by listing the parameter types of the
> > constructer, in
> > > order, as direct children of the element that
> declares
> > the bean.
> >
> > But on the other hand it was not really clear to me if
> the
> > examples given in the spec are _with_ or _without_ the
> bean
> > declaration itself (outer
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > in my example)!
> >
> > If we interpret it your way, then no 'mixed'
> > scenario like the following would work:
> >
> > I like to have a @Named(value="config")
> > @SessionScoped TstBeanConstructor PLUS I like to
> inject the
> > value 7 in setI2.
> >
> > How can this be achieved if there is no separation
> between
> > the constructor parameters and the additionally
> injected
> > ones?
> >
> > Maybe this is not needed? Or it's a shortcoming of
> the
> > spec? Or I'm completely confused? :)
> >
> > How I would write the XML (assuming a ct public
> > TstBeanConstructor(int ctParam) { ... ):
> >
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <Named>config</Named>
> > <SessionScoped/>
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <myapp:ctParam>42</myapp:ctParam>
>
> >
> > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <myapp:i2>7</myapp:i1>
> > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> schrieb
> > am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> >
> > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu
> <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor
> injection
> > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 8:14
> > > Hi Mark;
> > >
> > > Your XML definition is not correct, I think.
> > Specification
> > > says that, the immediate children of the XML bean
> > > declaration which correspond to *Java Type* is
> > captured as
> > > a *parameters* of this constructor. So the
> correct XML
> > > definition may be written as;
> > >
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > <lang: Integer/>
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> > > where *lang* is the namespace that corresponds to
> the
> > > *java.lang* package. You are able to give any
> > namespace
> > > instead of *lang*.
> > >
> > > When the container creates this bean instance, it
> will
> > > inject the constructor parameter with looking the
> > beans with
> > > API type *Integer* and Binding Type *@Current*.
> If it
> > finds
> > > the bean successfully, it injects its current
> > instance.
> > >
> > > For example, lets say that we define producer
> method
> > in
> > > other bean class (MyOtherBean) .
> > >
> > > class MyOtherBean
> > > {
> > >
> > > @RequestScoped @Produces
> > > public int getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue()
> > > {
> > > return 12;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > Then, container calls this method via its parent
> bean
> > > instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the resulted
> > instance
> > > (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor.
> > >
> > > I did not try to execute this sample, but I think
> it
> > works.
> > >
> > > Please look at the specification that contains
> full
> > > explanation of the XML defined constructor
> > declaration.
> > >
> > > /Gurkan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM
> > > Subject: XML definition for constructor injection
>
> > >
> > > grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam daemon
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> schrieb am
> > Di,
> > > 13.1.2009:
> > >
> > > > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > Betreff:
> > > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > I like to test the constructor injection via
> XML
> > > > definition.
> > > >
> > > > For what I understand after reading the
> spec, the
> > > following
> > > > should work:
> > > >
> > > > Assume we have the WebBean, _without_ any
> > annotations:
> > > >
> > > > public class TstBeanConstructor
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > private int i1=0;
> > > > private int i2=0;
> > > >
> > > > public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> > > > {
> > > > this.i1 = i1*100;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > public int getI1()
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and the XML looks like:
> > > >
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > >
> <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > should this work? At first I was a bit
> confused
> > about
> > > the 2
> > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is this
> correct
> > in
> > > the
> > > > XML?
> > > >
> > > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > > strub
Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Here is an example of what I like to have:
Let's assume I have a _given_ my.company.ConfigService (and I don't even have the sources) which has NO default constructor:
public class ConfigService {
private int val1=0, val2=0;
public ConfigService(int ctParam) { val1=100*ctParam; }
public setVal2(int val2) { this.val2=val2; }
public getVal1...
}
And I like to have the ConfigService as singleton with name "cfgSvc" defined via XML (since there is annotation in the given source).
The initialisation should be:
1.) create the ConfigService via it's constructor and ctParam=42
2.) call setVal2(666);
See what I mean? Is this even possible with the 'flat' structure in the samples of the spec? This would not allow to additionally set a value for val2, or did I confuse something?
How must the XML look like according to the spec?
txs and LieGrue,
strub
--- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 11:32
> Hi Gurkan!
>
> > the immediate children of the XML bean declaration
> I also understood it this way when I first read the spec.
>
> from the spec:
> > For a simple bean defined using XML, the bean
> constructor may be
> > specified by listing the parameter types of the
> constructer, in
> > order, as direct children of the element that declares
> the bean.
>
> But on the other hand it was not really clear to me if the
> examples given in the spec are _with_ or _without_ the bean
> declaration itself (outer <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> in my example)!
>
> If we interpret it your way, then no 'mixed'
> scenario like the following would work:
>
> I like to have a @Named(value="config")
> @SessionScoped TstBeanConstructor PLUS I like to inject the
> value 7 in setI2.
>
> How can this be achieved if there is no separation between
> the constructor parameters and the additionally injected
> ones?
>
> Maybe this is not needed? Or it's a shortcoming of the
> spec? Or I'm completely confused? :)
>
> How I would write the XML (assuming a ct public
> TstBeanConstructor(int ctParam) { ... ):
>
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> <Named>config</Named>
> <SessionScoped/>
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> <myapp:ctParam>42</myapp:ctParam>
>
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> <myapp:i2>7</myapp:i1>
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> schrieb
> am Mi, 14.1.2009:
>
> > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 8:14
> > Hi Mark;
> >
> > Your XML definition is not correct, I think.
> Specification
> > says that, the immediate children of the XML bean
> > declaration which correspond to *Java Type* is
> captured as
> > a *parameters* of this constructor. So the correct XML
> > definition may be written as;
> >
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <RequestScoped/>
> > <lang: Integer/>
> > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> >
> > where *lang* is the namespace that corresponds to the
> > *java.lang* package. You are able to give any
> namespace
> > instead of *lang*.
> >
> > When the container creates this bean instance, it will
> > inject the constructor parameter with looking the
> beans with
> > API type *Integer* and Binding Type *@Current*. If it
> finds
> > the bean successfully, it injects its current
> instance.
> >
> > For example, lets say that we define producer method
> in
> > other bean class (MyOtherBean) .
> >
> > class MyOtherBean
> > {
> >
> > @RequestScoped @Produces
> > public int getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue()
> > {
> > return 12;
> > }
> > }
> > Then, container calls this method via its parent bean
> > instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the resulted
> instance
> > (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor.
> >
> > I did not try to execute this sample, but I think it
> works.
> >
> > Please look at the specification that contains full
> > explanation of the XML defined constructor
> declaration.
> >
> > /Gurkan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM
> > Subject: XML definition for constructor injection
> >
> > grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam daemon
> >
> >
> > --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am
> Di,
> > 13.1.2009:
> >
> > > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > Betreff:
> > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I like to test the constructor injection via XML
> > > definition.
> > >
> > > For what I understand after reading the spec, the
> > following
> > > should work:
> > >
> > > Assume we have the WebBean, _without_ any
> annotations:
> > >
> > > public class TstBeanConstructor
> > > {
> > >
> > > private int i1=0;
> > > private int i2=0;
> > >
> > > public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> > > {
> > > this.i1 = i1*100;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public int getI1()
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > and the XML looks like:
> > >
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <RequestScoped/>
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
>
> >
> > >
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > >
> > >
> > > should this work? At first I was a bit confused
> about
> > the 2
> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is this correct
> in
> > the
> > > XML?
> > >
> > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > strub
Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Hi Gurkan!
> the immediate children of the XML bean declaration
I also understood it this way when I first read the spec.
from the spec:
> For a simple bean defined using XML, the bean constructor may be
> specified by listing the parameter types of the constructer, in
> order, as direct children of the element that declares the bean.
But on the other hand it was not really clear to me if the examples given in the spec are _with_ or _without_ the bean declaration itself (outer <myapp:TstBeanConstructor> in my example)!
If we interpret it your way, then no 'mixed' scenario like the following would work:
I like to have a @Named(value="config") @SessionScoped TstBeanConstructor PLUS I like to inject the value 7 in setI2.
How can this be achieved if there is no separation between the constructor parameters and the additionally injected ones?
Maybe this is not needed? Or it's a shortcoming of the spec? Or I'm completely confused? :)
How I would write the XML (assuming a ct public TstBeanConstructor(int ctParam) { ... ):
<myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
<Named>config</Named>
<SessionScoped/>
<myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
<myapp:ctParam>42</myapp:ctParam>
</myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
<myapp:i2>7</myapp:i1>
</myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
LieGrue,
strub
--- Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> schrieb am Mi, 14.1.2009:
> Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 8:14
> Hi Mark;
>
> Your XML definition is not correct, I think. Specification
> says that, the immediate children of the XML bean
> declaration which correspond to *Java Type* is captured as
> a *parameters* of this constructor. So the correct XML
> definition may be written as;
>
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> <RequestScoped/>
> <lang: Integer/>
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
>
> where *lang* is the namespace that corresponds to the
> *java.lang* package. You are able to give any namespace
> instead of *lang*.
>
> When the container creates this bean instance, it will
> inject the constructor parameter with looking the beans with
> API type *Integer* and Binding Type *@Current*. If it finds
> the bean successfully, it injects its current instance.
>
> For example, lets say that we define producer method in
> other bean class (MyOtherBean) .
>
> class MyOtherBean
> {
>
> @RequestScoped @Produces
> public int getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue()
> {
> return 12;
> }
> }
> Then, container calls this method via its parent bean
> instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the resulted instance
> (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor.
>
> I did not try to execute this sample, but I think it works.
>
> Please look at the specification that contains full
> explanation of the XML defined constructor declaration.
>
> /Gurkan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM
> Subject: XML definition for constructor injection
>
> grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam daemon
>
>
> --- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Di,
> 13.1.2009:
>
> > Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Betreff:
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> > Hi!
> >
> > I like to test the constructor injection via XML
> > definition.
> >
> > For what I understand after reading the spec, the
> following
> > should work:
> >
> > Assume we have the WebBean, _without_ any annotations:
> >
> > public class TstBeanConstructor
> > {
> >
> > private int i1=0;
> > private int i2=0;
> >
> > public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> > {
> > this.i1 = i1*100;
> > }
> >
> > public int getI1()
> > ...
> >
> >
> > and the XML looks like:
> >
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <RequestScoped/>
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
>
> >
> > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> >
> >
> > should this work? At first I was a bit confused about
> the 2
> > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is this correct in
> the
> > XML?
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
Re: XML definition for constructor injection
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
Hi Mark;
Your XML definition is not correct, I think. Specification says that, the immediate children of the XML bean declaration which correspond to *Java Type* is captured as a *parameters* of this constructor. So the correct XML definition may be written as;
<myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
<RequestScoped/>
<lang: Integer/>
</myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
where *lang* is the namespace that corresponds to the *java.lang* package. You are able to give any namespace instead of *lang*.
When the container creates this bean instance, it will inject the constructor parameter with looking the beans with API type *Integer* and Binding Type *@Current*. If it finds the bean successfully, it injects its current instance.
For example, lets say that we define producer method in other bean class (MyOtherBean) .
class MyOtherBean
{
@RequestScoped @Produces
public int getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue()
{
return 12;
}
}
Then, container calls this method via its parent bean instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the resulted instance (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor.
I did not try to execute this sample, but I think it works.
Please look at the specification that contains full explanation of the XML defined constructor declaration.
/Gurkan
________________________________
From: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM
Subject: XML definition for constructor injection
grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam daemon
--- Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Di, 13.1.2009:
> Von: Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Betreff:
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46
> Hi!
>
> I like to test the constructor injection via XML
> definition.
>
> For what I understand after reading the spec, the following
> should work:
>
> Assume we have the WebBean, _without_ any annotations:
>
> public class TstBeanConstructor
> {
>
> private int i1=0;
> private int i2=0;
>
> public TstBeanConstructor(int i1)
> {
> this.i1 = i1*100;
> }
>
> public int getI1()
> ...
>
>
> and the XML looks like:
>
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> <RequestScoped/>
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1>
>
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
> </myapp:TstBeanConstructor>
>
>
> should this work? At first I was a bit confused about the 2
> <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is this correct in the
> XML?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub