I agree Jozef. We started on this re-definifition of bean defining annotations sets to correct CDI-377, but if we can check all class annotation (and perhaps more depending of CDI-408 resolution) in CDI, it would be a cleaner job. Can you create the ticket for that ? Antoine > Le 12 mars 2014 à 10:08, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit : > >> Hi all, >> >> the CDI spec change, which adds @Interceptor, @Decorator and stereotypes >> to the set of bean defining annotations, was merged. This made me think >> whether this approach where we add annotations based on demand is the >> right one. Instead, I think we should review all the annotations defined >> in the CDI API and evaluate if it makes to have them as bean defining >> annotations. I think that this would yield more consistent and less >> ad-hoc result. >> >> Two candidates that come to mind are @Alternative and @Specializes. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Jozef >> _______________________________________________ >> cdi-dev mailing list >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev