>I think that makes sense with the new EL stack, really the case you are
>presenting would be coordinated in bean management outside of JSF
>because you 'none' scope actually means something-- managed externally.
I see your point, 'none' is really saying 'externally managed'. And I
see now the value of the spec attempting to save developers from
accidentally violating the scope of a managed bean.
However, I think that 'application' scoped beans could still be
allowed into 'none' scoped beans since there isn't really any JSF
appropriate "accidental" way to violate the scope of an application
scoped bean no matter how the 'none' scoped bean is externally
managed.
The case where I ran into this problem was in attempting to create an
object with 'none' scope because I didn't want to share its data with
any other instances in the request and I wanted to inject some
application level logic into the none bean to operate on the instance
specific data. That seems to me like a relatively valuable case that
would not create scope related problems.
Mike