Re: [cdi-dev] Veto and Requires

Hi! Nope, CODI has none of those methods, because @Veto can already be done via @Typed(), even in CDI-1.0. The mechanics of ProcessAnnotatedType#veto() and @Typed() are a bit different, but they lead to the same result. Rick, you need @Veto or @Typed() if you e.g. have a producer method for a class in a BDA. Otherwise you will get an AmbiguousResolutionException (because both the class and the producer methods are Bean<YourClass>). @Requires is really needed in the CDI-1.1 spec. Because the Seam3 @Optional Extension is not really portable as it assumes that NoClassDefFoundErrors and ClassNotFoundExceptions will get swallowed while the BeanManager performs the Classpath scanning. This has to be specified in CDI-1.1 LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com&gt; > Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:25 PM > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Veto and Requires > > > On 18 Oct 2011, at 06:59, Rick Hightower wrote: > >> "Any class or package may be prevented from providing bean definitions > based on the availability of other classes by adding the @Requires annotation on > the class or package." >> >> >> @Requires({Customer.class, Supplier.class}) public class Order { ... >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> Spring has something similar called @Required with some different behavior. > But now that I think on it... it is different enough.... >> >> I'd prefer explicit names for these annotations. @ExcludeFromCDI and @ > ExcludeFromCDIIfMissing. >> >> I know those are horrible names too. Not a big fan of @Veto and > @Requires. > > Hmm. Those names are not particularly consistent with the language style or > meaning used in CDI (for example, we never talk about CDI that way in the spec). > > @Veto is consistent with the .veto() method in the SPI, which is why it was > chosen. > > @Requires we agonised over for a long time, but couldn't come up with > anything better. If anyone has a better idea, please speak :-) > >> How about @ExcludeAsSource, and it has an optional attribute called > requires that takes an array of class types? > > I'm not sure this makes any sense, you aren't "excluded it as > source" (the class definition is still available), but vetoing the use of > the class as a bean. @Excludes could work (and is consistent with the CDI > style), possibly with an attribute called unlessAvailable (or something like > that). > >> >> I really really hate @Veto and @Requires. I guess I should search the mail > list and see if I missed this conversation. > > This was originally discussed on the seam or weld mailing lists, we had a long > discussion there. > > I think CODI has something similar, but can't find the naming right now. > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >