[weld-dev] non-visable classes and constructors

[Gavin King]

> The spec says:
>
>
> "A top-level Java class is a managed bean if it is defined to be a
> managed bean by any other Java EE specification, or if it meets all of
> the following conditions:
> •       It is not a non-static inner class.
> •       It is a concrete class, or is annotated @Decorator.
> ...
> •       It has an appropriate constructor—either:
>    •   the class has a constructor with no parameters, or
>    •   the class declares a constructor annotated @Inject.
>
> All Java classes that meet these conditions are managed beans and thus
> no special declaration is required to define a man- aged bean."
>
> Which part of the word "all" do you not understand? ;-)
>
> But more importantly, there is a very good usecase for allowing this
> case. I might be using an interface at the injection point, and hiding
> the actual implementation of the client by declaring the bean class
> package private. This is just like having a factory method defined
> within the package, so I'm not "breaking" any normal Java behavior
> here.
>
> Now, look, I'm slightly sympathetic to the idea that we could have
> chosen to say that bean constructors must not be private private, and
> that if the constructor with no parameters is private, then the class
> is not a bean. That would not be a completely unreasonable behavior
> (it doesn't necessarily follow from first principles, but you could do
> a bit of guessing about user intent and say that it's reasonable). But
> we didn't say that. We said something else. And the spec is now final.
> So for portability, we all have to comply with that.




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