[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-282?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Martin Kouba commented on CDI-282:
----------------------------------
Well, it makes sense not to support it. This issue was raised with PAT for annotations in
mind, which is not relevant any more. But the use case I was originally thinking of was
@Vetoed used on package.
Vetoing types - clarify consequences
------------------------------------
Key: CDI-282
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-282
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Reporter: Martin Kouba
Assignee: Pete Muir
Priority: Critical
Fix For: 1.1.PFD
The spec currently says {{@Vetoed}} type is *prevented from being considered by CDI* and
{{ProcessAnnotatedType.veto()}} forces the container to ignore the type. This is quite
obvious for classes and interfaces. However not so clear when vetoing annotations (e.g.
qualifier). I think ignoring means not being considered as qualifier (thus affects
resolution). Other (rather theoretical) example is vetoing non-contextual instances -
should it prevent performing dependency injection?
--
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