<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Agreed but this approach of splitting
things too much seems overly complicated to me. Let's not tie the
bean defining annotation definition to the @Scope/@NormalScope
meta-annotation presence. Let's instead say that all normal scopes
are bean defining annotations. It will then be implicit that an
annotation is a bean defining if either it is annotated with
@NormalScoped or is added as
BeforeBeanDiscovery.addScope(MyFirstScope.class,true,<true |
false>)<br>
<br>
Jozef<br>
<br>
On 03/19/2014 04:30 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6363D538-A9CF-4EBB-B14F-610332D64AF7@sabot-durand.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all,
Im’ back with the main subject of this MR.
To resolve CDI-377 we decided to exclude from the « Bean defining annotations » set, all Pseudo Scope type (scope annotation having the meta annotation @Scope) except @Dependent.
So all normal scope annotation (built-in and user defined) are Bean Defining Annotation.
Now what about a normal scope added with :
1) BeforeBeanDiscovery.addScope(MyFirstScope.class,true,<true | false>) ?
And a pseudo scope added with :
2) BeforeBeanDiscovery.addScope(MySecondScope.class,false,<true | false>) ?
For me MyFirstScope (defined in 1) should be a bean defining annotation while MySecondScope shouldn’t.
Any thought ?
Antoine
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>