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:

The line that doesn't sound right to me in the change is to go from:

It is not a non-static inner class.


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:

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.