scope widening of no scoped beans

[nimo22]

I have this:

@SessionScoped @Named
public class MyBean implements Serializable{ 

private static final long serialVersionUID = ll;


private @Inject Users u;

}

where Users is a no-scoped object!

public class User implements Serializable{ 

..}

By injecting u, I get a NEW INSTANCE of Users - u instance inherits a scope (dependent-scope). Does it mean, that u is sessionscoped? Have I widened the scope of u from no-scope to dependent(sessionscope) ?

Would it be better to avoid to inject no-scoped-beans:

@SessionScoped @Named
public class MyBean implements Serializable{ 

private static final long serialVersionUID = 1l;


private Users u;
// getter/setter

}

If I create/assign the instance u within MyBean without injecting it, then u will also live within a sessionscope.

What is best practice?

[nimo22]

And what is the difference of this

@Inject @New Users u;

and that

@Inject Users u;

when Users is still a no-scoped-bean

public class User implements Serializable{ 

..}

[asiandub]

There is nothing like a no-scoped bean, so I'm a bit confused what you mean. The distinction is between managed beans and the rest, and between normal scoped and pseudo scoped. But no-scoped has no meaning in CDI...

@SessionScoped @Named
public class MyBean implements Serializable{ 

private @Inject Users u;

}

As you say yourself, the user will be dependent scoped.

If I create/assign the instance u within MyBean without injecting it, then u will also live within a sessionscope.

That's absolutely true. But then you are taking care of the dependencies, and this will make all Weld developers sad and redundant...

@Inject @New Users u;

This makes sense if (and only if) the User is a normal-scoped (not pseudo-scoped) bean.  Compare the spec:

This allows the application to obtain a new instance of a bean which is not bound to the declared scope, but has had dependency injection performed.

[nickarls]

You can have something like

@SessionScoped
public class LoginBean {
  @Produces @Named User user = ...
}

which makes sessionscoped snapshots with a dependent scoped producer. Of course, you'll have to be careful with scope lifecycle-lengths when cross-injecting like that. So @Produces @SessionScoped @Named is safer for that, I think.

[nimo22]

With no-scoped, I mean beans which has no scope declared: (maybe compare it to java.faces.bean.NonScoped).

// no-scoped=pseudo-scoped: there is no scope defined in User-Object
public class User implements Serializable{ 

..}

@Inject @New Users u;

I know, for normal-scoped beans @New makes sense.

Why is it senseless for pseudo-scoped bean?

Because @Inject will inject everytime a new instance from a pseudo-scoped bean. Am I right? So @New is redundant for injected pseudo-scoped beans. Am I right?

[nimo22]

So @Produces @SessionScoped @Named is safer for that, I think.

That is indeed the way, I did it!