This all might be just a misunderstanding?
AfterDeploymentValidation has not much to do with application deployment into a container. In this hindsight we badly worded this lifecycle event. It really is more an ‚AfterApplicationValidation‘ event.
If you look at the CDI lifecycle then it’s clear that this comes after BeforeBeanDiscovery, etc. All this is handled in 11.5 of the CDI spec. And as you can read it defines things which need to happen „During the application initialization process,…“ So it really means ‚application startup’ and has nothing to do with application ‚deployment‘ (which I interpret as uploading/copying/installing an enterprise application (WAR/EAR/RAR) to a JavaEE container).
Or maybe I didn’t get the point…
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 28.02.2015 um 00:38 schrieb Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>:
>
> Jason Greene wrote on 02/27/15 09:51:
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Jason Greene <jason.greene_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So my recollection, was that this was intentional since the bindings aren’t useful to CDI applications, and you could always reference another binding defined by a component which did support it, if you needed such behavior. The deployment descriptor for CDI doesn’t allow you to override these bindings, and the other deployment descriptor locations don’t cover the full set where @Resource can appear (for example ejb-jar overrides are defined on ejb components and not globally). Finally, @Resource (and the other EE bindings) can only appear on producer fields, which is a subset of what 250 defined.
>>>
>>> I’ll ping Pete to see if he remembers the same, but yeah I agree the combination of the specs implies that it should work, other than the fact that it can’t work the way the global rules are defined.
>>
>> BTW I confirmed that this matched Petes understanding as well.
>>
>> There was never any interest for CDI managed beans to support:
>>
>> - Creation of @Resource (et al) JNDI Bindings
>> - Usage of @Resource (et al) Class declarations
>> - Usage of @Resource (et al) Method injection
>>
>> These all have no benefit to CDI applications because they are all superseded by other constructs. The annotations were just reused for the ties just to avoid creating new ones.
>
> Except that there's nothing anywhere in the spec that says in this specific
> case you don't have to create the bindings that the spec says you have to
> create. And for all the reasons described previously, we would not want
> the spec to say that.
>
>> In an early CDI draft there was a complete xml description language in beans.xml that could be used to override/define all aspects of CDI managed beans (including annotations). However, that was dropped since portable extensions allowed third party definitions of such a thing.
>
> I only ever expected that to be able to change how @Inject worked, not
> change how @Resource worked, since @Resource was defined by the platform
> spec and not the CDI spec.
>
>> The bindings, if desired for consistency purposes, could be addressed by the EE spec, and the existing CDI RI looks like it already can support that. Class declarations could likewise be addressed, but would probably require some CDI RI SPI improvements. Method injection on the other hand probably would require CDI spec involvement.
>
> The platform spec clearly requires that these bindings are created, always.
>
> If you extract all the annotation information from an application using
> whatever technique you think is correct, turn it into the corresponding
> deployment descriptor information, merge it into the deployment descriptors,
> set metadata-complete, and remove all the annotations from the application,
> will the behavior be the same? It should. That was clearly our intended
> design when we introduced these annotations and extended the deployment
> descriptors to allow injection to be specified.