9:12 a.m.
Hey
How come section 5.2.3., bullet 4 was changed from:
* the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type
parameter is a type variable and the actual type is assignable *to*
the upper bound, if any, of the type variable...
to:
* the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type
parameter is a type variable and the actual type is assignable
*from* the upper bound, if any, of the type variable...
Doesn't this mean bean Dao<T extends Persistent> will not be assignable
to Dao<User>?
M.
4:38 a.m.
Working on the assumption that in your example User extends Persistent, then Dao<T
extends Persistent> isn't assignable to Dao<User> generally, so this change
is correct, surely?
On 1 Apr 2012, at 15:12, Marko Lukša wrote:
Hey
How come section 5.2.3., bullet 4 was changed from:
• the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type parameter is a type
variable and the actual type is assignable to the upper bound, if any, of the type
variable...
to:
• the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type parameter is a type
variable and the actual type is assignable from the upper bound, if any, of the type
variable...
Doesn't this mean bean Dao<T extends Persistent> will not be assignable to
Dao<User>?
M.
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
4:46 a.m.
It looks correct. But ...
we have a bunch of tests in Weld -- search GenericBean<T>,
where we do just the opposite, hence I see where Marko's q came from,
as I've been hit by those failing tests as well, when I poked around Reflections.
We could change / fix this, but I see another wave of forum posts with this
"issue".
e.g. just remember last change of interceptor signature stricktness :-)
-Ales
Working on the assumption that in your example User extends
Persistent, then Dao<T extends Persistent> isn't assignable to Dao<User>
generally, so this change is correct, surely?
On 1 Apr 2012, at 15:12, Marko Lukša wrote:
> Hey
>
> How come section 5.2.3., bullet 4 was changed from:
> • the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type parameter is a type
variable and the actual type is assignable to the upper bound, if any, of the type
variable...
> to:
> • the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type parameter is a type
variable and the actual type is assignable from the upper bound, if any, of the type
variable...
> Doesn't this mean bean Dao<T extends Persistent> will not be assignable to
Dao<User>?
> M.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
4:47 a.m.
Actually, the example is in the spec itself (same section, a few rows
below).
On 2.4.2012 11:38, Pete Muir wrote:
Working on the assumption that in your example User extends
Persistent, then Dao<T extends Persistent> isn't assignable to Dao<User>
generally, so this change is correct, surely?
On 1 Apr 2012, at 15:12, Marko Lukša wrote:
> Hey
>
> How come section 5.2.3., bullet 4 was changed from:
> • the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type parameter is a type
variable and the actual type is assignable to the upper bound, if any, of the type
variable...
> to:
> • the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type parameter is a type
variable and the actual type is assignable from the upper bound, if any, of the type
variable...
> Doesn't this mean bean Dao<T extends Persistent> will not be assignable to
Dao<User>?
> M.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
4607
days inactive
4608
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Ales Justin -
Marko Lukša -
Pete Muir