[webbeans-dev] TCK Question

[Gavin King]

Yes.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
> Here is the quote from 7.6
>
> "Whenever the @Fires annotation appears at an injection point, an implicit
> bean exists with:
> • exactly the bean type and bindings that appear at the injection point,
> • deployment type @Standard,
> • @Dependent scope,
> • no bean name, and
> • an implementation provided automatically by the container. "
>
> So, really, it depends on what "an implicit bean" means. I would assert that
> it means that a bean exists that is registered with the Manager. Gavin?
>
>
> On 28 Feb 2009, at 10:48, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> While executing the standalone TCK tests related with "Event and
>> Observers", I tackled the one point.
>>
>> Specification says that whenever the bean uses the @Fires annotation on
>> its class field, like @Fires Event<T>, container provides the implicit bean
>> component. But it does/may not say that you have to add this implicit bean
>> component to the "Manager"'s beans bag. So when resolving the implicit event
>> object with Manager#resolveByType method, our implementation returns no
>> bean.
>>
>> What we do is that whenever the field injection is annotated with @Fires,
>> we create a new implicit bean object and add it into the bean Dependent
>> context, but not add this implicit bean into the Manager's bag.
>>
>> But in the TCK, it requires that Manager adds this implicit bean into its
>> bag.
>>
>> Actually, these are also applied for all implicit beans except the Manager
>> and Conversation beans.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> /Gurkan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webbeans-dev mailing list
>> webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>
> --
> Pete Muir
> http://www.seamframework.org
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>
>



-- 
Gavin King
gavin.king at gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org