[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PLUTO-702?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Neil Griffin reopened PLUTO-702:
--------------------------------

> Portlet classes in PortletHubDemo are not annotated with @ApplicationScoped
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: PLUTO-702
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PLUTO-702
>             Project: Pluto
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: demo portlets
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.0
>            Reporter: Neil Griffin
>            Assignee: Neil Griffin
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 3.0.1
>
>
> Section 20.1 of the Portlet 3.0 Specification states:
> {quote}
> When the portlet container uses the CDI container to instantiate the 
> portlets, it must respect
> any scope annotations on the portlet beans. Generally, portlets should be 
> @ApplicationScoped  in order to avoid unnecessary object creation and 
> destruction.
> It should be noted that regardless of the bean scope, the Portlet interface 
> init(PortletConfig) method will only be called a single time when the portlet 
> is taken into service. If the portlet bean scope is other than 
> @ApplicationScoped or @Dependent, this can potentially lead to unintended 
> effects. Portlets that do not directly or indirectly implement the Portlet 
> interface can use the CDI @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy annotations to 
> properly handle bean initialization and tear down. A PortletConfig object can 
> be injected as necessary.{quote}
> Since all of the portlet classes annotated with {{@PortletConfiguration}} in 
> the PortletHubDemo extend {{GenericPortlet}}, they indirectly implement the 
> {{Portlet}} interface. This means that the "unintended effects" can happen in 
> various portlet containers.
> Because of this, it is necessary to annotated each of these classes with the 
> {{@ApplicationScoped}} annotation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to