Re: [cdi-dev] Bean defining annotations
I agree Jozef. We started on this re-definifition of bean defining annotations sets to
correct CDI-377, but if we can check all class annotation (and perhaps more depending of
CDI-408 resolution) in CDI, it would be a cleaner job. Can you create the ticket for that
?
Antoine
Le 12 mars 2014 à 10:08, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> the CDI spec change, which adds @Interceptor, @Decorator and stereotypes
> to the set of bean defining annotations, was merged. This made me think
> whether this approach where we add annotations based on demand is the
> right one. Instead, I think we should review all the annotations defined
> in the CDI API and evaluate if it makes to have them as bean defining
> annotations. I think that this would yield more consistent and less
> ad-hoc result.
>
> Two candidates that come to mind are @Alternative and @Specializes.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Jozef
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 495 bytes)