Re: [cdi-dev] Veto and Requires
Hi!
Nope, CODI has none of those methods, because
@Veto can already be done via @Typed(), even in CDI-1.0. The mechanics of
ProcessAnnotatedType#veto() and @Typed() are a bit different, but they lead to the same
result.
Rick, you need @Veto or @Typed() if you e.g. have a producer method for a class in a BDA.
Otherwise you will get an AmbiguousResolutionException (because both the class and the
producer methods are Bean<YourClass>).
@Requires is really needed in the CDI-1.1 spec. Because the Seam3 @Optional Extension is
not really portable as it assumes that NoClassDefFoundErrors and ClassNotFoundExceptions
will get swallowed while the BeanManager performs the Classpath scanning. This has to be
specified in CDI-1.1
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
To: Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com>
Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Veto and Requires
On 18 Oct 2011, at 06:59, Rick Hightower wrote:
> "Any class or package may be prevented from providing bean definitions
based on the availability of other classes by adding the @Requires annotation on
the class or package."
>
>
> @Requires({Customer.class, Supplier.class}) public class Order { ...
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> Spring has something similar called @Required with some different behavior.
But now that I think on it... it is different enough....
>
> I'd prefer explicit names for these annotations. @ExcludeFromCDI and @
ExcludeFromCDIIfMissing.
>
> I know those are horrible names too. Not a big fan of @Veto and
@Requires.
Hmm. Those names are not particularly consistent with the language style or
meaning used in CDI (for example, we never talk about CDI that way in the spec).
@Veto is consistent with the .veto() method in the SPI, which is why it was
chosen.
@Requires we agonised over for a long time, but couldn't come up with
anything better. If anyone has a better idea, please speak :-)
> How about @ExcludeAsSource, and it has an optional attribute called
requires that takes an array of class types?
I'm not sure this makes any sense, you aren't "excluded it as
source" (the class definition is still available), but vetoing the use of
the class as a bean. @Excludes could work (and is consistent with the CDI
style), possibly with an attribute called unlessAvailable (or something like
that).
>
> I really really hate @Veto and @Requires. I guess I should search the mail
list and see if I missed this conversation.
This was originally discussed on the seam or weld mailing lists, we had a long
discussion there.
I think CODI has something similar, but can't find the naming right now.
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev