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