Hi, My suggestions on this will make it clear for CDI 1.1: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-70 With this clarifications the current implementation in OWB would be illegal since it introspects the superclass using reflection instead of using the AnnotatedType (which currently would not work, since the AnnotatedType does not contain this information). The problem here is, that if the AnnotatedType does not contain information of superclass hierarchy (like currently in OWB), there is no way for Extensions to modify annotations of superclasses (i.e. add a qualifier to an @Inject-field or -method). Nothing seems to indicate that this was the intention of the CDI 1.0 spec ;-) Kind regards, Arne -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Mark Struberg Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:13 An: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Betreff: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information? Hi! I think the spec is not explicit on this question: Should the AnnotatedType delivered to the Extensions as parameter or via BeanManager#getAnnostatedType() also deliver information gathered from it's superclass hierarchy? Sounds reasonable, but is nowhere explicitely defined. Thus I better ask ;) txs and LieGrue, strub _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

Maybe we should explicitly state that AnnotatedType contains superclass information. Currently it's implicit because of my wording and the fact, that Annotations on superclasses are processed (i.e. @Inject on superclasses works). Regards, Arne -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Peter Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:28 An: Arne Limburg Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information? Yes, AnnotatedType is the *only* source of metadata, reflection must not be used. Arne's wording is in HEAD. -- Pete Muir http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete On 23 May 2011, at 22:25, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > My suggestions on this will make it clear for CDI 1.1: > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-70 > With this clarifications the current implementation in OWB would be illegal since it introspects the superclass using reflection instead of using the AnnotatedType (which currently would not work, since the AnnotatedType does not contain this information). > > The problem here is, that if the AnnotatedType does not contain information of superclass hierarchy (like currently in OWB), there is no way for Extensions to modify annotations of superclasses (i.e. add a qualifier to an @Inject-field or -method). Nothing seems to indicate that this was the intention of the CDI 1.0 spec ;-) > > Kind regards, > Arne > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Mark Struberg > Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:13 > An: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Betreff: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information? > > Hi! > > I think the spec is not explicit on this question: Should the AnnotatedType delivered to the Extensions as parameter or via BeanManager#getAnnostatedType() also deliver information gathered from it's superclass hierarchy? > > Sounds reasonable, but is nowhere explicitely defined. Thus I better ask ;) > > txs and LieGrue, > strub > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

Hi! There are still subtle differences open. E.g. should annotations from a superclass ct get resolved if they have @Inherited? LieGrue, strub --- On Mon, 5/23/11, Peter Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > From: Peter Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; > Subject: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information? > To: "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de&gt; > Cc: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt;, &quot;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&quot; <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Date: Monday, May 23, 2011, 9:48 PM > I think it's ok now > > -- > Pete Muir > http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete > > On 23 May 2011, at 22:41, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de&gt; > wrote: > >> Maybe we should explicitly state that AnnotatedType > contains superclass information. Currently it's implicit > because of my wording and the fact, that Annotations on > superclasses are processed (i.e. @Inject on superclasses > works). >> >> Regards, >> Arne >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Peter Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com] > >> Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:28 >> An: Arne Limburg >> Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also > reflect inherited information? >> >> Yes, AnnotatedType is the *only* source of metadata, > reflection must not be used. Arne's wording is in HEAD. >> >> -- >> Pete Muir >> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete >> >> On 23 May 2011, at 22:25, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de&gt; > wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> My suggestions on this will make it clear for CDI > 1.1: >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-70 >>> With this clarifications the current > implementation in OWB would be illegal since it introspects > the superclass using reflection instead of using the > AnnotatedType (which currently would not work, since the > AnnotatedType does not contain this information). >>> >>> The problem here is, that if the AnnotatedType > does not contain information of superclass hierarchy (like > currently in OWB), there is no way for Extensions to modify > annotations of superclasses (i.e. add a qualifier to an > @Inject-field or -method). Nothing seems to indicate that > this was the intention of the CDI 1.0 spec ;-) >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Arne >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org > [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] > Im Auftrag von Mark Struberg >>> Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:13 >>> An: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> Betreff: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also > reflect inherited information? >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I think the spec is not explicit on this question: > Should the AnnotatedType delivered to the Extensions as > parameter or via BeanManager#getAnnostatedType() also > deliver information gathered from it's superclass > hierarchy? >>> >>> Sounds reasonable, but is nowhere explicitely > defined. Thus I better ask ;) >>> >>> txs and LieGrue, >>> strub >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cdi-dev mailing list >>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cdi-dev mailing list >>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >

When initially building the AnnotatedType (e.g. before handing it over to the Extensions) we need to pre-fill them with the info from the annotations from the classes. Should this AnnotatedType: 1.) contain no annotations from superclasses? 2.) contain all annotations from superclasses? 3.) contain @Inherited annotations from superclasses? LieGrue, strub --- On Tue, 5/24/11, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; > Subject: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information? > To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; > Cc: "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de&gt;, &quot;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&quot; <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 11:03 AM > What does "resolved" mean in this > case? > > On 23 May 2011, at 22:51, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> There are still subtle differences open. E.g. should > annotations from a superclass ct get resolved if they have > @Inherited? >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> --- On Mon, 5/23/11, Peter Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: >> >>> From: Peter Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Subject: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType > also reflect inherited information? >>> To: "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de&gt; >>> Cc: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt;, > &quot;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&quot; > <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>> Date: Monday, May 23, 2011, 9:48 PM >>> I think it's ok now >>> >>> -- >>> Pete Muir >>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete >> >>> >>> On 23 May 2011, at 22:41, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe we should explicitly state that > AnnotatedType >>> contains superclass information. Currently it's > implicit >>> because of my wording and the fact, that > Annotations on >>> superclasses are processed (i.e. @Inject on > superclasses >>> works). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Arne >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: Peter Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com] >>> >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:28 >>>> An: Arne Limburg >>>> Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType > also >>> reflect inherited information? >>>> >>>> Yes, AnnotatedType is the *only* source of > metadata, >>> reflection must not be used. Arne's wording is in > HEAD. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pete Muir >>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete >> >>>> >>>> On 23 May 2011, at 22:25, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de&gt; >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> My suggestions on this will make it clear > for CDI >>> 1.1: >>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-70 >> >>>>> With this clarifications the current >>> implementation in OWB would be illegal since it > introspects >>> the superclass using reflection instead of using > the >>> AnnotatedType (which currently would not work, > since the >>> AnnotatedType does not contain this information). >>>>> >>>>> The problem here is, that if the > AnnotatedType >>> does not contain information of superclass > hierarchy (like >>> currently in OWB), there is no way for Extensions > to modify >>> annotations of superclasses (i.e. add a qualifier > to an >>> @Inject-field or -method). Nothing seems to > indicate that >>> this was the intention of the CDI 1.0 spec ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Arne >>>>> >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>> Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >>> [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] >>> Im Auftrag von Mark Struberg >>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:13 >>>>> An: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> Betreff: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType > also >>> reflect inherited information? >>>>> >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> I think the spec is not explicit on this > question: >>> Should the AnnotatedType delivered to the > Extensions as >>> parameter or via BeanManager#getAnnostatedType() > also >>> deliver information gathered from it's superclass >>> hierarchy? >>>>> >>>>> Sounds reasonable, but is nowhere > explicitely >>> defined. Thus I better ask ;) >>>>> >>>>> txs and LieGrue, >>>>> strub >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> cdi-dev mailing list >>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> >>>>> >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> cdi-dev mailing list >>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> >>> > >