That would also be fine.
Stuart
On 22/08/2012, at 8:06 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Or just say that if you want to add >1 annotated type based on the
same class you must specify a unique id for it?
On 21 Aug 2012, at 23:00, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> I have actually been thinking about this. What if we say that any additional added
AnnotatedTypes are not passivation capable, but then add an additional version of
addAnnotatedType() where the extension explicitly specifies the bean id to make it
passivation capable?