[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-216?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Mark Struberg commented on CDI-216:
-----------------------------------
well, the whole stuff is not yet coherent. What if a user likes to remove the @Veto
annotation via ProcessAnnotatedType?
It is also completely undefined in which phase this information gets extracted and applied
by the container.
This is exactly as broken as all the @Requires atm. Referencing a class which doesn't
exist at runtime is not really working...
@Veto and ProcessAnnotatedType
------------------------------
Key: CDI-216
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-216
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Components: Concepts, Packaging and Deployment
Affects Versions: 1.1.EDR1
Reporter: Gerhard Petracek
Priority: Critical
currently the spec. specifies:
"The container must fire an event for each Java class or interface it discovers in a
bean archive, and for annotated type added by BeforeBeanDiscovery.addAnnotatedType(),
before it reads the declared annotations."
that's ok for cdi 1.0.
however, if @Veto gets added to cdi 1.1, we need a clarification here.
the internal implementation via a std. cdi doesn't make sense because other
extensions still get the corresponding ProcessAnnotatedType event.
-> Annotated types with @Veto (or as suggested at CDI-50: @Unmanaged or @Exclude)
shouldn't lead to a ProcessAnnotatedType event.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira