Conclusion of EG preparation on CDI 1.2
Updated on 01/07/2014
We finished to deal with the list of 28 Jira we planned to introduce or not in MR. So 24 of them will be in MR and 4 won’t. The list is also accessible on Jira.
| Jira | Description | Decision | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
Update outdated license |
in MR |
||
bean-discovery-mode="annotated" and Producers/Observers in @Dependent beans |
in MR |
||
@RequestScoped Javadoc outdated |
in MR |
||
Session bean specialization example is not valid |
in MR |
||
BeanManager#getProducerFactory return type differs between API and spec |
in MR |
||
automatic JSR-330 annotation processing problematic |
in MR |
Mention needed and perhaps a new feature |
|
Clarify SessionScoped |
in MR |
We should be less descriptive and like for CDI-381 add a general statement telling that other spec/extensions can change the behavior of built-in scope |
|
clarify behavior of implicit bean archive |
in MR |
The notion of Bean Archive is introduce in Chapter 12, we should do an introduction before |
|
Clarify whether ProcessAnnotatedType should be fired for annotations |
in MR |
According to pm it shouldn’t and we should clarify this |
|
@WithAnnotations types can appear on any supertype |
in MR |
Mainly Javadoc correction on @WithAnnotation |
|
behavior of CDI bean @Specializes session bean is undefined |
in MR |
could benefit some clarification |
|
Clarify interceptors are not associated with the result of a producer method/field |
in MR |
||
Reword the description of @RequestScoped and @ApplicationScoped in section 2.4.1 |
in MR |
||
Clarify the meaning of "bean class local view" |
in MR |
||
Clarify that an array with a variable component type or parameterized component type containing wildcards is not a valid bean type |
in MR |
||
Clarify when the operations of BeanManager can be called |
in MR |
||
Two examples in section 5.2.4 contradict the rules of the same section |
in MR |
||
Clarify interceptors are not associated with the result of a producer method/field |
in MR |
||
Additional implementations of Request Context |
in MR |
we should add general statement telling that extension can change the behavior of built-in scope |
|
Make stereotypes bean defining annotations |
in MR |
||
adding bean-defining annotations for Interceptor while setting bean-discovery-mode="annotated" |
in MR |
||
Revert CDI-85 |
in MR |
we revert to CDI 1.0 behavior but we will have to propose something better in CDI 2.0 |
|
Clarify Section 6.6.3 regarding singletons |
in MR |
we should go a little beyond and check all occurrences of "singleton" in the spec to clarify if it’s an singleton session bean or a singleton scope |
|
CDI conversation activation conflicts with the Servlet spec |
in MR |
Solution exist at different level. We should at least put a mention in the spec and o something at impl level |
|
Clarify life cycle of RequestScoped |
out MR |
each spec should detail how they stick to built-in scope |
|
Expand @RequestScoped and @SessionScoped to account for WebSocket |
out MR |
It’s the responsibility of Websocket spec. We should ensure they take the point before closing the ticket |
|
Clarify what happens when the user creates a unbound recursive injection with Dependent scoped beans |
out MR |
Container doesn’t have to support this : the ticket should be closed |
|
Public fields in extensions should not be allowed |
out MR |
it can bring backwards compatibility problem to correct this issue. We should see if impls allows it today. If it’s not the case it could be safely added to the MR |