I understand the 4.3.1. subsection in the following way: If X -> Z -> Y, then X specializes both Y and Z. Therefore X inherits the qualifiers and bean name of Y, but also X inherits the qualifiers and bean name of Z. The problem is that there are 2 rules for what the qualifiers of X should include: • all qualifiers of Y, together with all qualifiers declared explicitly by X, and • all qualifiers of Z, together with all qualifiers declared explicitly by X, which might seem to be a contradiction. However, it does not say that the qualifiers of X do NOT include anything else (include => mathematical subset) so the option for including all of them wins IMO. If the intention was as Mark mentioned, then a clarification is strongly needed. If the intention was not to ignore the beans in-between, then the rule for indirect specialization seems quite redundant to me. Indeed, if X -> Z -> Y, then Z specializes Y. Therefore Z inherits the qualifiers and bean name of Y. Furthermore, X inherits the qualifiers and bean name of Z (because X -> Z), so X inherits the qualifiers and bean name of Y (transitively). And what about the restrictions and definition errors? No worry about that. When you think about it: - If the set of the types of X (denote Types(X)) has to be a subset of Types(Z), and Types(Z) ⊆ Types(Y), then also Types(X) ⊆ Types(Y). - If Y has a bean name and X declares a bean name explicitly, then Z inherits the Y's bean name and the problem is still detected. WDYT? Matus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; To: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:37:00 AM Subject: [cdi-dev] Challenge TCK test for indirect specialization rules Hi! The question is about org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.inheritance.specialization.simple.SimpleBeanSpecializationTest#testSpecializingBeanHasNameOfSpecializedBean and a few other tests in there. Imo they directly contradict 4.3.1 of the spec: ------- Formally, a bean X is said to specialize another bean Y if either: • X directly specializes Y, or • a bean Z exists, such that X directly specializes Z and Z specializes Y. Then X will inherit the qualifiers and bean name of Y: • the qualifiers of X include all qualifiers of Y, together with all qualifiers declared explicitly by X, and • if Y has a bean name, the bean name of X is the same as the bean name of Y. ------- in this wording the 'intermediate class' Z in the inheritance chain X -> Z -> Y intentionally gets ignored imo. It explicitly doesn't say that 'all @Specializes up in the chain' do account for the name and qualifiers. To me it reads like the 'last' (outermost) @Specializes and the 'first' non-specializes beans do count. All @Specializes beans in-between get ignored when it comes to @Named and @Qualifier resolution. There was imo also a test for it in the CDI-1.0 TCK which we did successfully pass. But obviously this got rewritten to a different behavior. Here is the transcript of my discussion with martin and jozef so far: http://transcripts.jboss.org/channel/irc.freenode.org/%23jsr346/2014/%23j... txs and LieGrue, strub _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

you are wrong in quite a few ways imo: wrong, A still (indirectly) extends C, thus C is not enabled. The same is btw true if you have  As -> B -> C -> D (s indicates @Specialized) In this case A is the only enabled one. B, C and D are all disabled. This doesn't need anything special regarding indirect specialization. 4.3.1 does explicitly rule out transitivity for @Specialized layers 'in-between'... If you have  As -> Bs -> C -> D then only As and C account for the name and qualifier evaluation. LieGrue, strub On Friday, 6 June 2014, 10:17, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

----- Original Message ----- Yes, of course, I am aware of these. I kind of misexpressed myself. What I wanted to say is that the indirect specialization is redundantly contained in "Then X will inherit the qualifiers and bean name of Y:". I think the following suffices: 'If X directly specializes Y, then X will inherit the qualifiers and bean name of Y:'

The way I read it is that the "indirect specialization" part is just a different way of saying that specialization is transitive. From that it is apparent that you cannot just leave out the bean in the middle. Jozef On 06/03/2014 10:37 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: