Hi!
There are still subtle differences open. E.g. should annotations from a superclass ct get
resolved if they have @Inherited?
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Mon, 5/23/11, Peter Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
From: Peter Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
Subject: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information?
To: "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de>
Cc: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>,
"cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2011, 9:48 PM
I think it's ok now
--
Pete Muir
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
On 23 May 2011, at 22:41, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de>
wrote:
> Maybe we should explicitly state that AnnotatedType
contains superclass information. Currently it's implicit
because of my wording and the fact, that Annotations on
superclasses are processed (i.e. @Inject on superclasses
works).
> Regards,
> Arne
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Peter Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:28
> An: Arne Limburg
> Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also
reflect inherited information?
> Yes, AnnotatedType is the *only* source of metadata,
reflection must not be used. Arne's wording is in HEAD.
> --
> Pete Muir
>
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
> On 23 May 2011, at 22:25,
Arne Limburg <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de>
wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>> My suggestions on this will make it clear for CDI
1.1:
>>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-70
>> With this clarifications the current
implementation in OWB would be illegal since it introspects
the superclass using reflection instead of using the
AnnotatedType (which currently would not work, since the
AnnotatedType does not contain this information).
>
>> The problem here is, that if the AnnotatedType
does not contain information of superclass hierarchy (like
currently in OWB), there is no way for Extensions to modify
annotations of superclasses (i.e. add a qualifier to an
@Inject-field or -method). Nothing seems to indicate that
this was the intention of the CDI 1.0 spec ;-)
>
>> Kind regards,
>> Arne
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org]
Im Auftrag von Mark Struberg
>> Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:13
>> An: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Betreff: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also
reflect inherited information?
>
>> Hi!
>
>> I think the spec is not explicit on this question:
Should the AnnotatedType delivered to the Extensions as
parameter or via BeanManager#getAnnostatedType() also
deliver information gathered from it's superclass
hierarchy?
>
>> Sounds reasonable, but is nowhere explicitely
defined. Thus I better ask ;)
>
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
>>
_______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev