Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
Hi Pete,
Obviously the current implementations (at least Weld and OpenWebBeans) need special
handling for this case. From a user perspective it would be convenient to be able to do a
beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class). That is the only way currently to list all available
Beans, which is needed from time to time. Since I am always a fan of seeing things from
the users perspective, so why not specifying this?
Cheers,
Arne
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:13
An: Arne Limburg
Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
Right, this is the obvious solution, (well actually we would specify that a bean is
registered for Instance as well as Instance<X> rather than fiddle with the
resolution rules). I'm not sure if there any problems right now ;-)
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:11, Arne Limburg wrote:
Hi,
wouldn't be so hard to specify that
beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class); is the same as
beanManager.getBeans(new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>()
{}.getType());
Cheers,
Arne
--
Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de
http://www.openknowledge.de
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Pete Muir
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:08
An: Mark Struberg
Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:06, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just there
>> is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
>
>
> Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
Ok, so until I actually see someone make a specific comment, I think
we can leave this alone :-)
>
>
>> Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
>
> 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 ...
Ok, file an issue, we can think about how to improve this.
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev