I had long night yesterday and like to share my outcome. First, big thanks to Gurkan again for being so patient with me yesterday ;)
Oki, here is what I guess is the answer to my question in form of a patch. I reread the spec and somehow I have the gut feeling that either I still do not understand it fully (most probably) or the spec is still a bit inconsistent or we do have something missing in the implementation yet. E.g. we currently do not allow Enums, <Array> and primitive wrapper classes like java.lang.Integer in constructor injection. Whereas the spec states that > 10.3.3. Bean constructor declarations -> 10.6 > 10.6 Injection point declarations -> 10.8 > 10.8 Specifying bean types and bindings > • an element that represents a Java class or interface, > or <Array> ... The spec says nothing about real primitive types like int though. But this would perfectly make sense to me, like one may have an existing service which has to be filled. And all the needed functionality is already there for the field injection. Please review the XMLs in the patch if I interpreted the spec correctly! status so far: .) The example with invoking TstBeanConstructor(CtParameter) works .) I have a patch for making the TstBeanConstructor(Integer) work, but it's pretty ugly, so I will only work on this if you confirm that this use case should work according to the spec. .) I'm not sure if TstBeanConstructor(int,int) is ok for the spec. Doesn't work anyway ;) Another thing I was not really aware of: > XML-based bean declarations define additional beans—they do not > redefine or disable any bean that was declared via annotations. I always thought the XML based may redefine the beans behaviour. E.g. if one bean has a standard scope, I may override the scope via XML. Or I may change the injection of a service used on a production server. This would really be handy in praxis! txs, strub --- Mark Struberg <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi, 14.1.2009: > Von: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection > An: [email protected] > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 22:56 > Here is an example of what I like to have: > > Let's assume I have a _given_ my.company.ConfigService > (and I don't even have the sources) which has NO default > constructor: > > public class ConfigService { > private int val1=0, val2=0; > public ConfigService(int ctParam) { val1=100*ctParam; } > public setVal2(int val2) { this.val2=val2; } > public getVal1... > } > > And I like to have the ConfigService as singleton with name > "cfgSvc" defined via XML (since there is > annotation in the given source). > > The initialisation should be: > 1.) create the ConfigService via it's constructor and > ctParam=42 > 2.) call setVal2(666); > > > See what I mean? Is this even possible with the > 'flat' structure in the samples of the spec? This > would not allow to additionally set a value for val2, or did > I confuse something? > > How must the XML look like according to the spec? > > txs and LieGrue, > strub > > > --- Mark Struberg <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi, > 14.1.2009: > > > Von: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor injection > > An: [email protected] > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 11:32 > > Hi Gurkan! > > > > > the immediate children of the XML bean > declaration > > I also understood it this way when I first read the > spec. > > > > from the spec: > > > For a simple bean defined using XML, the bean > > constructor may be > > > specified by listing the parameter types of the > > constructer, in > > > order, as direct children of the element that > declares > > the bean. > > > > But on the other hand it was not really clear to me if > the > > examples given in the spec are _with_ or _without_ the > bean > > declaration itself (outer > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > in my example)! > > > > If we interpret it your way, then no 'mixed' > > scenario like the following would work: > > > > I like to have a @Named(value="config") > > @SessionScoped TstBeanConstructor PLUS I like to > inject the > > value 7 in setI2. > > > > How can this be achieved if there is no separation > between > > the constructor parameters and the additionally > injected > > ones? > > > > Maybe this is not needed? Or it's a shortcoming of > the > > spec? Or I'm completely confused? :) > > > > How I would write the XML (assuming a ct public > > TstBeanConstructor(int ctParam) { ... ): > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > <Named>config</Named> > > <SessionScoped/> > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > <myapp:ctParam>42</myapp:ctParam> > > > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > <myapp:i2>7</myapp:i1> > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > schrieb > > am Mi, 14.1.2009: > > > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu > <[email protected]> > > > Betreff: Re: XML definition for constructor > injection > > > An: [email protected] > > > Datum: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009, 8:14 > > > Hi Mark; > > > > > > Your XML definition is not correct, I think. > > Specification > > > says that, the immediate children of the XML bean > > > declaration which correspond to *Java Type* is > > captured as > > > a *parameters* of this constructor. So the > correct XML > > > definition may be written as; > > > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > > <RequestScoped/> > > > <lang: Integer/> > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > > > > > where *lang* is the namespace that corresponds to > the > > > *java.lang* package. You are able to give any > > namespace > > > instead of *lang*. > > > > > > When the container creates this bean instance, it > will > > > inject the constructor parameter with looking the > > beans with > > > API type *Integer* and Binding Type *...@current*. > If it > > finds > > > the bean successfully, it injects its current > > instance. > > > > > > For example, lets say that we define producer > method > > in > > > other bean class (MyOtherBean) . > > > > > > class MyOtherBean > > > { > > > > > > @RequestScoped @Produces > > > public int getTstBeanConstructorInitialValue() > > > { > > > return 12; > > > } > > > } > > > Then, container calls this method via its parent > bean > > > instance (MyOtherBean) and injects the resulted > > instance > > > (Integer:12) into the TstBeanConstructor. > > > > > > I did not try to execute this sample, but I think > it > > works. > > > > > > Please look at the specification that contains > full > > > explanation of the XML defined constructor > > declaration. > > > > > > /Gurkan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:51:43 PM > > > Subject: XML definition for constructor injection > > > > > > > grr, my first mail got eaten by the spam daemon > > > > > > > > > --- Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > schrieb am > > Di, > > > 13.1.2009: > > > > > > > Von: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > > Betreff: > > > > An: [email protected] > > > > Datum: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009, 21:46 > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > I like to test the constructor injection via > XML > > > > definition. > > > > > > > > For what I understand after reading the > spec, the > > > following > > > > should work: > > > > > > > > Assume we have the WebBean, _without_ any > > annotations: > > > > > > > > public class TstBeanConstructor > > > > { > > > > > > > > private int i1=0; > > > > private int i2=0; > > > > > > > > public TstBeanConstructor(int i1) > > > > { > > > > this.i1 = i1*100; > > > > } > > > > > > > > public int getI1() > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > and the XML looks like: > > > > > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > > > <RequestScoped/> > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > > > > <myapp:i1>12</myapp:i1> > > > > > > > > > > > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > > > </myapp:TstBeanConstructor> > > > > > > > > > > > > should this work? At first I was a bit > confused > > about > > > the 2 > > > > <myapp:TstBeanConstructor>, is this > correct > > in > > > the > > > > XML? > > > > > > > > txs and LieGrue, > > > > strub
