Re: [cdi-dev] Events and Type Variables in CDI 1.1

Yes, go ahead with the spec issue. Jozef On 05/04/2014 10:24 PM, Arne Limburg wrote: > Hi Jozef, > > In this case the type variable can be resolved to a wildcard type. > Should this be legal or not? For now, I find to wording in the spec > that forbids the event type to resolve to a wildcard type. So this may > be a spec issue AND a tck issue. Shall I create a ticket for it? > > Cheers, > Arne > > Von: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com <mailto:jharting@redhat.com>> > Datum: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 16:20 > An: Arne Limburg <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de > <mailto:arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>> > Cc: &quot;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>" > <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> > Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Events and Type Variables in CDI 1.1 > > Hi, > > I think this is a spec issue. The spec should make it clearer that a > "resolvable type variable" means a type variable that can be resolved > to a reference type other than a type variable. > > Jozef > > On 04/30/2014 09:32 PM, Arne Limburg wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I found an issue in either the spec or the tck, which I would like to >> discuss: >> The >> TCK-Test org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.event.fires.FireEventTest.testTypeVariableEventTypeFails >> uses the following bean to fire an event by calling the method >> fireWithTypeVariable() >> >> publicclassBar { >> >> >> @Inject >> >> private Event<Foo<? extends Number>> event; >> >> >> public <T extends Number> void fireWithTypeVariable() { >> >> event.fire(new Foo<T>()); >> >> } >> >> >> } >> >> >> The TCK expects this test to fail because of the type variable in the >> instance created by new Foo<T>() >> However, the spec states in 10.3.1 „If the container is unable to >> resolve the parameterized type of the event object, it uses the >> specified type to infer the parameterized type of the event types.“ >> Imho in this case the container is able to resolve T to "? extends >> Number“ and the spec does not prohibit an event to have a wildcard >> type. So since T is not unresolvable, this test case should not >> expect the container to throw an exception. If we consider T not to >> be resolved, because it resolves to a wildcard type, we should >> mention this somewhere in the spec. Or am I missing something? >> >> Cheers, >> Arne >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cdi-dev mailing list >> cdi-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev