Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'

Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way. I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is pretty well hidden in the specs). And people wondered why that doesn't work ... LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; > Cc: &quot;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&quot; <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance' > > See section 5.6.2. The built-in Instance - the spec only requires a bean of type > Instance<X> not of raw type Instance<> > > I'm not sure there is a generalization here (or I don't understand > yours). The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just there > is no raw type of Instance to resolve. > > > On 24 Sep 2011, at 11:41, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Currently both Weld and OWB blow up if I resolve an unparameterized > 'Instance' object. >> >> beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class); >> >> will return zero beans, so there is no way to call beanManager.getReference > ... >> >> >> Of course with a little trick I was able to get it working in OWB: >> Type instanceType = new > TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>(){}.getType(); >> Set<Bean<?>> beans = beanManager.getBeans(instanceType); >> >> (did not test it on Weld yet) > > This should work on Weld to. > >> >> >> My question is which behaviour is expected. >> This question could maybe be generalized to: how do beans for parameterized > types need to get handled? >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cdi-dev mailing list >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >