Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'

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