Uploaded image for project: 'CDI Specification Issues'
  1. CDI Specification Issues
  2. CDI-140

improve passivation capable bean validation for @Dependent scoped beans in 6.6.4

        Details

        • Type: Clarification
        • Status: Resolved (View Workflow)
        • Priority: Major
        • Resolution: Done
        • Affects Version/s: 1.0
        • Fix Version/s: 1.1.EDR
        • Component/s: Resolution
        • Labels:
          None
        • Estimated Difficulty:
          Medium

          Description

          Currently section 6.6.4 defines that @Dependent scoped beans which get injected into a bean of a passivating scope must be Serializable.

          "If a producer method or field of scope @Dependent returns an unserializable object for injection into an injection point that requires a passivation capable dependency, the container must throw an Illegal- ProductException"

          The question is how to interpret "that requires a passivation capable dependency".

          It would e.g. be perfectly fine if the @Dependent bean is not Serializable if the injectionpoint will be serialized via a writeObject or Externalizable#writeExternal.

          Proposal: to explicitly add a check for Modifier.TRANSIENT and writeObject(ObjectOutputStream) and Externalizable#writeExternal(ObjectOutput)

          This is very important for @Dependent scoped producers of legacy classes because there is otherwise no way to inject such classes at all.

            Gliffy Diagrams

              Issue Links

              is related to

              Clarification - A clarification needed to a specification based on community feedback CDI-153 PassivationCapable producer method/field definition is ambiguous

              • Major - A request that should be considered seriously but is not a show stopper.
              • Resolved
              relates to

              Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. CDI-141 remove overly strict Serialization requirements for @Inject method and ct parameters

              • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
              • Resolved

                Activity

                Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
                Hide
                Permalink
                pmuir Pete Muir added a comment -

                Mark, do you want to create a patch to the spec for this?

                Show
                pmuir Pete Muir added a comment - Mark, do you want to create a patch to the spec for this?
                Hide
                Permalink
                struberg Mark Struberg added a comment -

                yup, will finally start working on it

                Show
                struberg Mark Struberg added a comment - yup, will finally start working on it
                Hide
                Permalink
                struberg Mark Struberg added a comment -

                https://github.com/jboss/cdi/pull/47

                Show
                struberg Mark Struberg added a comment - https://github.com/jboss/cdi/pull/47
                Hide
                Permalink
                struberg Mark Struberg added a comment -

                CDI-153 touches the same paragraphs.

                Show
                struberg Mark Struberg added a comment - CDI-153 touches the same paragraphs.

                  People

                  • Assignee:
                    struberg Mark Struberg
                    Reporter:
                    struberg Mark Struberg
                  • Votes:
                    0 Vote for this issue
                    Watchers:
                    2 Start watching this issue

                    Dates

                    • Created:
                      Updated:
                      Resolved:

                      Development