Hi
I would recommend ROLL_BACK too, because this part requires an
in deep discussion and that will take a lot more time.
In few words, the problem is scopes shorter than session scope but
longer than request scope (view scope, access scope, flow scope...)
may be valid to store UIComponent and other attached objects,
but these objects are under control of JSF, and the CDI container
doesn't know how to clean up the references before do the
serialization step and restore them later.
The problem is that CDI doesn't provide a way to notify JSF that a bean
is being serialized, or from other point of view, JSF doesn't do the cleanup
before end the request.
This is a difficult problem and it should not be taken lightly.
regards,
Leonardo Uribe
2013/3/11 Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>:
> Hello Volunteers,
>
> I'm back in the office today and will be working through the emails.
> However, I need to bring something up that Manfred brough to my
> attention.
>
> The design intent of spec-763 was to make it so all JSF managed
> artifacts are injectable using CDI and common annotations. After
> initial implementation work was completed, Manfred uncovered a difficult
> interaction between this feature and state saving. In short, it is not
> possible without significant more engineering work to make the feature
> work reliably for UIComponents and their attached objects. Some options
> include:
>
> OPTION: ROLL_BACK
>
> Do not require that CDI and common annotations work with UIComponents
> and attached objects. This means the following artifact types would be
> removed from table 5-3 in section 5.4.1.
>
> javax.faces.component.UIComponent
> javax.faces.component.behavior.Behavior
> javax.faces.convert.Converter
> javax.faces.validator.Validator
>
> OPTION: DOCUMENT
>
> Rather than roll back the changes, document that injection of things
> with a scope equal to or narrower than Request Scope will not work.
>
> After discussion with Manfred, I recommend ROLL_BACK until we figure out
> how to implement it correctly with respect to state saving.
>
> ACTION: Please let me know what you think of this.
>
> Ed