Assumption all @Stateful beans should be passivation capable
------------------------------------------------------------
Key: CDITCK-218
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-218
Project: CDI TCK
Issue Type: CTS Challenge
Security Level: Public (Everyone can see)
Reporter: David Blevins
Stateful session beans in transactions can't be passivated and shouldn't have
passivation requirements either, like request scope.
Stateful beans can be any scope. They are the Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans
of EJB. It's too big of a brush to say that passivation is always required.
That's the part we need to fix.
Stateful session beans that do passivate are pretty rare. They should be
assumed to be @NormalScope unless otherwise specified.
The user should be able to say if they want passivation validation on their
stateful bean and dependencies.
We should at a minimum change the related language of the spec to be "For every
bean which declares a passivating scope, and for every stateful session bean
***that requires passivation***, " and discuss how to determine that an SFSB
requires passivation.
>From the EJB perspective this has always been a container detail, but we could
>have a rule in CDI that states the checks are not enforced unless the bean
>class explicitly implements java.io.Serializable. Alternatively we could make
>a generic @PassivationScoped annotation for other architectures that have
>flexible scopes and support passivation concepts.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
_______________________________________________
weld-issues mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
