Hi,

Annotation builder would be +1. It's a tiny bit less convenient, but more universal. So better for the spec.

Convenience addition could theoretically still be:

Set<Bean<?>> getBeans(Type beanType, Class<?> annotationType, Object... annotation attributes);

But... I acknowledge that  this would again be for a more specific situation (namely, a bean with exactly 1 qualifier and 0 or more binding attributes).

While on the subject, it's currently not possible for an injected bean to get hold of the annotation instance that's used in CDI.current().select(), BeanManager.getBeans, etc, is it?

Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms









On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Martin Kouba <mkouba@redhat.com> wrote:
Type safety is not guaranteed in the current version of AnnotationInstanceProvider (deltaspike). We should at least check the provided map of member values against the set of declared methods. Otherwise, I like the idea of standardizing a similar "annotation instance builder".

Martin

Dne 12.9.2016 v 12:34 Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a):
Think it is maybe saner to have AnnotationProvider.of(type, params)
(like in deltaspike) since it doesnt leave the parameterized annotations
(which are not rare) next the road.


Romain Manni-Bucau
 @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
<https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>

2016-09-12 12:28 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@gmail.com
 <mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com>>:

    Hi,

    Wouldn't it be convenient as the CDI API that now requires an
    Annotation instance in various APIs, would also accept the class
    type of that Annotation?

    E.g. in BeanManager there's this method:

    Set<Bean<?>> getBeans(Type beanType, Annotation... qualifiers)

    This not rarely requires one to create an AnnotationLiteral, which
    is not specifically difficult but a tad verbose. For qualifiers that
    have no (binding) attributes, a simple Class would be much easier to
    use.

    Thoughts?

    Kind regards,
    Arjan Tijms

    _______________________________________________
    cdi-dev mailing list
     cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
    https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
    <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
     <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.




_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@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.