[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-348?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Jozef Hartinger reopened CDI-348:
---------------------------------
{quote}Any scope type is a bean defining annotation, and any bean which has a scope type
declared on the bean class is said to have a bean defining annotation.{quote}
This is quite weirdly specified. Assume the following class:
{noformat}
@ApplicationScoped
public class FooProducer {
@Produces
public Integer produceInteger() {
return 0;
}
}
{noformat}
{quote}bean which has a scope type declared on the bean class is said to have a bean
defining annotation{quote}
FooProducer is the bean class of the producer method. However, we cannot say that the
producer method *has* a scope type declared on the bean class. It's more of an
observation that the bean class of the producer method declares a bean defining
annotation.
Clarify which beans "have" bean defining annotations
----------------------------------------------------
Key: CDI-348
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-348
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Components: Beans
Affects Versions: 1.1.PFD
Reporter: Jozef Hartinger
Assignee: Pete Muir
Priority: Blocker
Fix For: 1.1.FD
{quote}Any bean which has scope type is said to have a bean defining annotation.{quote}
The spec makes this vague statement and provides two examples which only cover the two
simplest cases. What remains unclear is:
- if a bean class inherits a scope annotation definition from a superclass, should it be
discovered in an implicit bean archive?
- if a bean inherits a scope from a stereotype, should it be discovered in an implicit
bean archive?
- if a producer method / field has a scope annotation but the declaring bean is not a
bean with bean defining annotation, whould the producer be discovered?
--
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