tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: TomEE + CDI + Wicket = no suitable constructor for injection
Date Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:13:39 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message