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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > >> To: "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]>; Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > >> Kime: "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > >>> To: openwebbeans-dev <[email protected]> > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
