Hmmm... so far all scopes for the EJBs are defined in the CDI spec. So
it would be strange if the EJB spec define scope for one bean type...
my $.02
What do others think?
thanks,
-marina
Mark Struberg wrote:
> PS: please note that this does _not_ require to change any code or apply @javax.inject.Scope. This would purely be a textual clarification in the spec.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: Mark Struberg <struberg_at_yahoo.de>
>> To: ejb-users <users_at_ejb-spec.java.net>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 6:02 PM
>> Subject: [ejb-spec users] Question regarding CDI Scope for @Stateless beans
>>
>> Dear EJB EG!
>>
>> We have a question regarding the scope which we should use for @Stateless beans
>> handling in CDI. Currently this is defined as being treated as @Dependent. But
>> this is obviously wrong and got only worded that way to prevent the CDI
>> containers from applying CDI NormalScoped proxies.
>>
>>
>> Please see the discussion so far on our CDI EG issue tracker:
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-278
>>
>> A possible solution would be to define javax.ejb.Stateless as non-normalscoped
>> CDI scope. CDI would *not* apply any client proxies itself that way but we would
>> be able to return javax.ejb.Stateless.class in Bean#getScope() for EJBs.
>>
>> We think this is a good solution but don't like to define this in the CDI
>> spec because this is clearly an EJB related question and we don't like to
>> cross-specify EJB behaviour in the CDI spec.
>>
>> Wdyt? Would that fit into your concept?
>>
>>
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>