What does "resolved" mean in this case?
On 23 May 2011, at 22:51, Mark Struberg wrote:
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
>