Re: [cdi-dev] CDI-508 - Which java classes can be managed beans

Just to confirm (because negatives always make things harder to digest) An abstract class annotated Decorator is a managed bean - correct?

Because of this line: It is a non-abstract class, or is annotated `@Decorator`.

John On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:12 AM Tomas Remes <tremes(a)redhat.com <mailto:tremes@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi, Yes this proposal is sufficient and reads better. I can change my PR if there aren't any further objections? Thank's Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Kouba" <mkouba(a)redhat.com <mailto:mkouba@redhat.com>> To: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament(a)gmail.com <mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com>>, cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 8:12:44 AM Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI-508 - Which java classes can be managed beans Hi all, given that local and anonymous classes are special kinds of inner classes, we could also simply change the sentence to: "It is not an inner class." Anyway, I think the change of the first sentence is much more important, i.e. removing the "top-level"... Maybe we should also remove "top-level" from the next sentence: "It is a top-level non-abstract class, or is annotated `(a)Decorator`.&quot; So that we would end up with: A Java class is a managed bean if it meets all of the following conditions: * It is not an inner class. * It is a non-abstract class, or is annotated `@Decorator`. * It does not implement `javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension`. * It is not annotated `@Vetoed` or in a package annotated `@Vetoed`. * It has an appropriate constructor - either: What do you think? Martin Dne 4.5.2016 v 02:32 John D. Ament napsal(a): > All, > > I think I had an action item to get this clarified, not 100% sure, but > let me give this a shot. > > Tomas raised a PR for CDI-508 to clarify which classes are meant to be > managed beans. You can find that PR here: > https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/282/ > > The line that doesn't sound right to me in the change is to go from: > > It is not a non-static inner class. > > to > > It is not a non-static nested class. > > I'll use the java programming language tutorial as a point of reference, > you can read the page I'll refer to here: > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/nested.html > > Basically, non-static nested classes are AKA inner classes. The term > "non-static inner class" shouldn't exist, and that means the original > text doesn't make sense, and should probably be inferred as "It is not > an inner class" > > From reading this part of the spec, it becomes unreadable due to the > double negative (probably why the aka exists). My proposal was to > change the line to instead read (in a positive way) "It is a static > nested class" but I can also understand if we want to do this in an > exclusion pattern rather than an inclusion pattern. > > Thoughts? > > John > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information. > -- Martin Kouba Software Engineer Red Hat, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.