Not nice != broken. In the case of the serialization rule it was really broken and got 'clarified' in cdi-1.1 ;)
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:05 PM > Subject: Re: Yan: CDI 1.0 TCK Problem + validatePassivationDependencies > > 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
