Re: [cdi-dev] explicit bean archives discovery-mode 'annotated'

This interface/enum discovery use-case very often uses a marker annotation (e.g. @MessageBundle). Such extension can work around this limitation by making the marker annotation a @Stereotype. Can you see any other scenarios where implicit bean archives are a problem? On 03/05/2015 09:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Well, the terms ‚explicit‘ and ‚implicit‘ BDA are blurry as well. I_explicitly_ add a beans.xml with version=1.1 and bean-discovery-mode=„annotated“ and still it is an ‚implicit‘ BDA according to those definitions. Not very self-explaining but anyway. Has not much to do with the current topic as well, so not sure why you mentioned it? > > An example of usability would e.g. be the DeltaSpike @MessageBundle feature. Seam3 has had something similar afair. > For those who don’t know it see [1]. You basically have an interface and DeltaSpike automatically picks those up and provides implementations for them which are registered as Beans. > > But in the ‚annotated‘ mode we wont get any PAT for those interfaces anymore. The same mechanism is used tor JPA archives, PropertyFileConfig, etc… > Just grep DeltaSpike and check where PAT gets used. It’s all over the place… > > LieGrue, > strub _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)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.