[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-280?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDI-280: ------------------------------------------ {quote} I don't think this clarification will help to understand "5.5.8 Bean metadata" better (this section is just complicated). {quote} Yes, I agree: more example sooner in this chapter would benefit understanding. {quote} I wouldn't introduce Bean Metadata but rather continue with Bean. Bean Metadata might be more correct but also possible source of confusion. {quote} In fact Bean Metadata is already introduced : 5.5.8 use this term many times. And I really think we should have distinctive name between the bean instance and the bean metadata, it's the purpose of this ticket. {quote} We should definitely check whether we use Bean instance (aka contextual instance of a Bean) consistently. {quote} In theory it's the best term, but everybody use the *Bean* abbreviation. So, IMO, we really should reserved the term *Bean* to shorten the *Bean Instance* and for nothing else. That said I agree we should try to use *Bean Instance* in the spec. {quote} Proxy - I'm not sure, to my understanding client proxy and contextual reference are synonyms with some formal differences {quote} Yes they're synonyms. I prefer *Bean Reference* but there are so much occurrence of *Proxy* or *Client proxy* in the spec that I hesitate to switch to *Bean Reference*. {quote} InjectionPoint Type - NOK, the spec uses required type consistently (see 5.2 Typesafe resolution), also I don't see any confusion here {quote} Agree -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira