tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bertrand Guay-Paquet <ber...@step.polymtl.ca>
Subject Re: TomEE + CDI + Wicket = no suitable constructor for injection
Date Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:48:09 GMT
Hi Romain,

Thanks for having a look at the code. However, I'm sorry but I don't 
understand your email. I looked into the source of wicket and only found 
3 @Inject annotations (all in wicket-cdi).

How and where does wicket-cdi "define beans with constructor params"? I 
probably don't know enough about cdi to be able to spot it with only 
that info. Perhaps my own code (from project test-wicket-cdi) is at fault?

Thanks,
Bertrand

On 07/01/2013 1:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> wicket-cdi defines beans with constructor params without @Inject on
> the constructor so it is not a cdi bean for cdi
>
>
> then not sure how they use it but the issue is in wicket-cdi
>
>
> if it is a false cdi bean (manage by wicket) it should be annotated
> Typed(), if not the constructor should be annotated @Inject
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2013/1/7 Bertrand Guay-Paquet <bernie@step.polymtl.ca>:
>> Here you go:
>> https://github.com/berniegp/test-wicket-cdi
>>
>>
>> On 04/01/2013 5:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>> Share it on github if possible
>>> Le 4 janv. 2013 20:49, "Bertrand Guay-Paquet" <bernie@step.polymtl.ca>
a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Howard: I already had a look at these messages and others from the Wicket
>>>> mailing list. They were indeed helpful in getting me to where I am now.
>>>>
>>>>   From what I understand, Harald is right and wicket-cdi is not specific
>>>> to
>>>> Weld. @RequestScoped, @SessionScoped and @ApplicationScoped all work fine
>>>> in my limited tests. However, I'm not able to get @ConversionScoped
>>>> working
>>>> with the owb seam connector (seam-conversation-owb) for an unknown
>>>> reason;
>>>> but this is not related to my prior questions.
>>>>
>>>> Romain: Where should I send a small sample app which demonstrates the
>>>> issue?
>>>>
>>>> Also, am I "swimming against the current" by trying to use cdi instead of
>>>> jndi lookups for connecting my EJB tier to the web tier (Wicket)? I
>>>> currently, have jndi lookups working correctly and wanted to benefit from
>>>> the cdi goodies but I'm starting to think it's not worth the trouble
>>>> right
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bertrand
>>>>
>>>> On 04/01/2013 2:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> if you have a sample i'll will give it a try this week end but looking
>>>>> quickly not sure it is implemented to be portable
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>>>> Blog:
>>>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.**com/<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
>>>>> LinkedIn:
>>>>> http://fr.linkedin.com/in/**rmannibucau<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>
>>>>>
>>>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/1/4 Harald Wellmann <hwellmann.de@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wicket-cdi [1] only depends on the CDI API, not on Weld. The Seam
>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>> is optional in fact. So it should work with OWB (but I haven't tried).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The message means that DetachEventEmitter is being considered as
an
>>>>>> injection target but does not have a default constructor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is why this class is considered at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose you have a WAR with a WEB-INF/beans.xml descriptor to enable
>>>>>> CDI
>>>>>> and wicket-cdi in WEB-INF/lib/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be that OpenWebBeans scans all JARs in WEB-INF/lib even
if the
>>>>>> individual libs don't contain a beans.xml marker (and wicket-cdi
has no
>>>>>> beans.xml, nor is it a CDI extension).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I remember a discussion about Bean Deployment Archives being handled
>>>>>> differently in Weld and OWB and people arguing the CDI 1.0 spec to
be
>>>>>> somewhat broken in this respect.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://search.maven.org/**remotecontent?filepath=org/**
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache/wicket/wicket-cdi/6.1.**1/wicket-cdi-6.1.1.pom<http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=org/apache/wicket/wicket-cdi/6.1.1/wicket-cdi-6.1.1.pom>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Harald
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 04.01.2013 19:33, schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    wicket-cdi is for weld not for cdi if it is the one i'm thinking
>>>>>>> about. So this is not portable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>>>>>> Blog:
>>>>>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.**com/<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
>>>>>>> LinkedIn:
>>>>>>> http://fr.linkedin.com/in/**rmannibucau<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2013/1/4 Bertrand Guay-Paquet <bernie@step.polymtl.ca>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When running Wicket with its wicket-cdi module which provides
CDI
>>>>>>>> injection
>>>>>>>> of Wicket components, I get a ton of info/warnings of this
sort:
>>>>>>>> org.apache.webbeans.component.**creation.**
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AnnotatedTypeBeanCreatorImpl
>>>>>>>> defineConstructor
>>>>>>>> INFO: No suitable constructor found for injection target
class :
>>>>>>>> [class
>>>>>>>> org.apache.wicket.cdi.**DetachEventEmitter]. produce() method
does
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> work!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm new to CDI so I searched online but couldn't find out
what these
>>>>>>>> mean...
>>>>>>>> Are they problematic? What do they mean? Apparently, wicket
+ weld
>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> produce these messages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Bertrand
>>>>>>>>


Mime
View raw message