openwebbeans-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From titou10 titou10 <>
Subject Re: How to handle injections of java.util.List<> into @ConversationScoped beans?
Date Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:00:31 GMT
Thank for your answer, but your don't answer the question
Of course, there is only one producer of
List<TestObjectWhichIsSerialisable> so it is correct. Replacing
List<..> by ArrayList<..> in both producer and IP make it to work
(because ArrayList<..> implements Serializable.
The producer is in another class and the list is produced in @Dependent scope

The question is still open..

2013/7/30 Luc <>:
> In fact, you can't inject a list, because there are multiple implementations
> of list interface. Which one should select the container to be instanciated?
> But I think is more important to know is: how this list will be
> "constructed" and used later?
> If TestBean2 is a bean inyected somewhere else that will populate the list,
> you don't need any @Inject.
> --
> Lucas
> 2013/7/30 titou10 titou10 <>
>> Given the fact that, per the specs
>> ( section 6.6),
>> "For every bean which declares a passivating scope, and for every
>> stateful session bean, the container must validate that the bean truly
>> is passivation capable and that, in addition, its dependencies are
>> passivation capable.." "..the container automatically detects the
>> problem and treats it as a deployment problem."
>> Wit the following class, OWB fails to start as per the specs :
>> @ConversationScoped
>> public class TestBean2 implements Serializable {
>>    private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
>>    @Inject private List<TestObjectWhichIsSerialisable>  listTestObject;
>> }
>> Because List<> is not serializable
>> How do you people, handle this situation?
>> - Replace all declaration of List<> by the concrete implementation
>> class (it seems that all implementation of List<> are serializable) ?
>> - Declare those fields as transient and manage manually the passivation?
>> - "deactivate the container passivation feature" if possible in the
>> application server and tell OWB to not enforce this (how?) ?
>> We can not find a good solution for this and this appear to be a real
>> problem for us.

View raw message