Re: [cdi-dev] Veto and Requires

From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; Cc: Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com>; cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Veto and Requires Yeah, @Veto makes this use of @Typed "first class". Any thoughts on the naming Mark? On 18 Oct 2011, at 15:37, Mark Struberg wrote: > 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&gt; >> To: Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com&gt; >> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >> 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 >>