I don't think that dots may be allowed in EL names in generally, since dots are
used to separate single objects from each other.
E.g. a
#{"manager.user.name"}
would look up a bean named "manager" then look for a member called "user" in
this manager instance and finally call getName() on the user we got from the
manager.
Thus something like a @Named("org.apache.dingsda.name"), although valid from
the JSR-299 spec perspective, it is not accessible from EL.
Maybe there should be a statement somewhere in the spec that names given to
beans must match the EL spec if they are to be used in EL statements?
LieGrue,
strub
PS: @Named is still a valid @Qualifier in the JSR-330 sense, so one could
easily use the sample above to do something like
private @Inject @Named("org.apache.dingsda.name") MyCls myInstance;
This is perfectly valid, but we do not suggest to use @Named this way.
--- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> schrieb am Di, 23.2.2010:
> Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]>
> Betreff: Re: Ideas about conversation
> An: [email protected]
> Datum: Dienstag, 23. Februar, 2010 12:52 Uhr
> >>>1) RI documentation says
> that conversation bean can be acccessed from EL
> JSR-299 says that Conversation instance must be accessed
> with EL
> name(Actually this is the name of Conversation Bean) *
> "javax.enterprise.context.conversation*" not with
> *"conversation"*. This
> name is valid according to the section 2.5 Bean EL Names.
> Currently EL
> implementation does not support "dot" notation names. If we
> try to use it to
> get conversation, it throws exception that says "javax" not
> found. I do not
> know how to handles this requirement. It needs contribution
> :)
>
> >>>Others
> These are extensions that are not related with OWB. I think
> that Mark has
> started a some extension project for MyFaces.
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> 2010/2/23 Martin Koci <[email protected]>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1) RI documentation says that conversation bean can be
> acccessed from EL
> > with name "
> > conversation":
> > http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/1.0.1-CR2/en-US/html/scopescontexts.html#d0e1882(but
> is it mentioned in spec?)
> >
> > This is probably not implemented in OWB. Simple hack
> in WebBeansELresolver
> > solves it:
> >
> > if ("conversation".equals(property)) {
> >
> context.setPropertyResolved(true);
> >
> return
> >
> manager.getInstanceByType(javax.enterprise.context.Conversation.class);
> > }
> >
> > but this is only first try.
> >
> > 2) accessing conversation scope as java.util.Map from
> EL
> >
> > JSF currently has implicit objects sessionScope,
> requestScope, viewScope
> > ... It would be nice if OWB can expose current
> conversation context as map
> > too - see example below.
> >
> >
> > 3) JSF 2.0 support custom scopes:
> > http://blogs.sun.com/rlubke/entry/custom_managed_bean_scopes.
> > Maybe exposing conversation context as custom scope
> can be useful for
> > existing applications.
> >
> >
> > 4) uses cases for conversation: I checked all our
> applications and the most
> > common use case is (unsurprisingly):
> > - start conversation
> > - put some objects into conversation scope
> > - start dialog/conversation with user
> > - user ends dialog
> > - end conversation
> >
> > following example comes from trinidad:
> >
> > <h:commandButton action="dialog:textEdit"
> > returnListener="#{bean.processReturn}">
> >
> <f:setPropertyActionListener value="a value passed to
> dialog"
> > target="#{pageFlowScope.valueKey}" />
> >
> <f:setPropertyActionListener value="other value passed to
> dialog"
> > target="#{pageFlowScope.otherValueKey}" />
> > </h:commandButton>
> >
> >
> > with CDI (and 1 and 2 implemented) it looks:
> >
> > <h:commandButton action="dialog:textEdit"
> > returnListener="#{conversation.end()}">
> > <f:actionListener
> binding="conversation.start()" />
> >
> <f:setPropertyActionListener value="a value passed to
> dialog"
> > target="#{conversationScope.valueKey}" />
> >
> <f:setPropertyActionListener value="other value passed to
> dialog"
> > target="#{conversationScope.otherValueKey}" />
> > </h:commandButton>
> >
> > What do you think? I'm not sure what belongs to CDI
> implementation and what
> > should be a separate extension.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Martin Kočí
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gurkan Erdogdu
> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen
Massenmails.
http://mail.yahoo.com
