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 21:29:01 GMT
As far as I can see it works, yes.

However, I do have a suspicious eye towards warnings which I don't 
understand. Also, I thought maybe this was somehow related to the crash 
I get if I uncomment the "seam-conversation-owb" dependency in the pom.

Bertrand

On 07/01/2013 4:18 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> BTW guys,
>
> it works then no? just warnings at startup no?
>
> 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>:
>> Harald,
>>
>> Thanks for jumping in! I think you are much better informed regarding this
>> issue than I am.
>>
>> Regarding the UnmanagedObject class, you are right. I meant "unmanaged" in
>> the sense that wicket does not inject it automatically, but via a method
>> call in the constructor. Since this test project could be referenced
>> elsewhere, I'll add a comment to that effect.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>> On 07/01/2013 4:03 PM, Harald Wellmann wrote:
>>> wicket-cdi does not define beans, they define injection targets which
>>> OpenWebBeans (IMHO incorrectly) treats as managed beans, hence the confusing
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> I've started a new thread [1] on the OWB user list for this issue.
>>>
>>> I've tested Bertrand's sample without problems on GlassFish/Weld, and the
>>> Weld implementation code for InjectionTargets looks a good deal cleaner to
>>> me.
>>>
>>> Bertrand: By the way, the UnmanagedObject in your sample is in fact a
>>> managed bean - not adding a @XXXScoped qualifier does not make it unmanaged,
>>> it's a managed bean with @Dependant scope.
>>>
>>> [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openwebbeans.user/369
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Harald
>>>
>>> Am 07.01.2013 07:44, schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>


Mime
View raw message