7:41 p.m.
Hi!
Currently both Weld and OWB blow up if I resolve an unparameterized 'Instance'
object.
beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class);
will return zero beans, so there is no way to call beanManager.getReference ...
Of course with a little trick I was able to get it working in OWB:
Type instanceType = new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>(){}.getType();
Set<Bean<?>> beans = beanManager.getBeans(instanceType);
(did not test it on Weld yet)
My question is which behaviour is expected.
This question could maybe be generalized to: how do beans for parameterized types need to
get handled?
LieGrue,
strub
4:44 a.m.
See section 5.6.2. The built-in Instance - the spec only requires a bean of type
Instance<X> not of raw type Instance<>
I'm not sure there is a generalization here (or I don't understand yours). The
parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just there is no raw type of
Instance to resolve.
Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
On 24 Sep 2011, at 11:41, Mark Struberg wrote:
Hi!
Currently both Weld and OWB blow up if I resolve an unparameterized 'Instance'
object.
beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class);
will return zero beans, so there is no way to call beanManager.getReference ...
Of course with a little trick I was able to get it working in OWB:
Type instanceType = new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>(){}.getType();
Set<Bean<?>> beans = beanManager.getBeans(instanceType);
(did not test it on Weld yet)
This should work on Weld to.
My question is which behaviour is expected.
This question could maybe be generalized to: how do beans for parameterized types need to
get handled?
LieGrue,
strub
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
5:06 a.m.
The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just
there
is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is pretty well
hidden in the specs).
And people wondered why that doesn't work ...
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
> To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
> Cc: "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
>
> See section 5.6.2. The built-in Instance - the spec only requires a bean of type
> Instance<X> not of raw type Instance<>
>
> I'm not sure there is a generalization here (or I don't understand
> yours). The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just there
> is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
>
Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
>
> On 24 Sep 2011, at 11:41, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Currently both Weld and OWB blow up if I resolve an unparameterized
> 'Instance' object.
>>
>> beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class);
>>
>> will return zero beans, so there is no way to call beanManager.getReference
> ...
>>
>>
>> Of course with a little trick I was able to get it working in OWB:
>> Type instanceType = new
> TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>(){}.getType();
>> Set<Bean<?>> beans = beanManager.getBeans(instanceType);
>>
>> (did not test it on Weld yet)
>
> This should work on Weld to.
>
>>
>>
>> My question is which behaviour is expected.
>> This question could maybe be generalized to: how do beans for parameterized
> types need to get handled?
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
5:08 a.m.
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:06, Mark Struberg wrote:
> The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's
just there
> is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
Ok, so until I actually see someone make a specific comment, I think we can leave this
alone :-)
> Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is pretty well
hidden in the specs).
And people wondered why that doesn't work ...
Ok, file an issue, we can think about how to improve this.
5:11 a.m.
Hi,
wouldn't be so hard to specify that beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class); is the same
as
beanManager.getBeans(new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>() {}.getType());
Cheers,
Arne
--
Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de
http://www.openknowledge.de
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag
von Pete Muir
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:08
An: Mark Struberg
Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:06, Mark Struberg wrote:
> The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's
just there
> is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
Ok, so until I actually see someone make a specific comment, I think we can leave this
alone :-)
> Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is pretty well
hidden in the specs).
And people wondered why that doesn't work ...
Ok, file an issue, we can think about how to improve this.
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
5:12 a.m.
Right, this is the obvious solution, (well actually we would specify that a bean is
registered for Instance as well as Instance<X> rather than fiddle with the
resolution rules). I'm not sure if there any problems right now ;-)
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:11, Arne Limburg wrote:
Hi,
wouldn't be so hard to specify that beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class); is the same
as
beanManager.getBeans(new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>() {}.getType());
Cheers,
Arne
--
Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de
http://www.openknowledge.de
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag
von Pete Muir
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:08
An: Mark Struberg
Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:06, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just there
>> is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
>
>
> Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
Ok, so until I actually see someone make a specific comment, I think we can leave this
alone :-)
>
>
>> Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
>
> I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is pretty
well hidden in the specs).
> And people wondered why that doesn't work ...
Ok, file an issue, we can think about how to improve this.
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
5:18 a.m.
Hi Pete,
Obviously the current implementations (at least Weld and OpenWebBeans) need special
handling for this case. From a user perspective it would be convenient to be able to do a
beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class). That is the only way currently to list all available
Beans, which is needed from time to time. Since I am always a fan of seeing things from
the users perspective, so why not specifying this?
Cheers,
Arne
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:13
An: Arne Limburg
Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
Right, this is the obvious solution, (well actually we would specify that a bean is
registered for Instance as well as Instance<X> rather than fiddle with the
resolution rules). I'm not sure if there any problems right now ;-)
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:11, Arne Limburg wrote:
Hi,
wouldn't be so hard to specify that
beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class); is the same as
beanManager.getBeans(new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>()
{}.getType());
Cheers,
Arne
--
Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de
http://www.openknowledge.de
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Pete Muir
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:08
An: Mark Struberg
Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:06, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just there
>> is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
>
>
> Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
Ok, so until I actually see someone make a specific comment, I think
we can leave this alone :-)
>
>
>> Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
>
> I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is pretty
well hidden in the specs).
> And people wondered why that doesn't work ...
Ok, file an issue, we can think about how to improve this.
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
5:21 a.m.
I think you misunderstood me, I asked Mark (or anyone) to file an issue so that we can
specify this ;-) I'm not doing it right now as I'm in the middle of refactor of
Infinispan ;-)
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:18, Arne Limburg wrote:
Hi Pete,
Obviously the current implementations (at least Weld and OpenWebBeans) need special
handling for this case. From a user perspective it would be convenient to be able to do a
beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class). That is the only way currently to list all available
Beans, which is needed from time to time. Since I am always a fan of seeing things from
the users perspective, so why not specifying this?
Cheers,
Arne
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:13
An: Arne Limburg
Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
Right, this is the obvious solution, (well actually we would specify that a bean is
registered for Instance as well as Instance<X> rather than fiddle with the
resolution rules). I'm not sure if there any problems right now ;-)
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:11, Arne Limburg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> wouldn't be so hard to specify that
> beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class); is the same as
> beanManager.getBeans(new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>()
> {}.getType());
>
> Cheers,
> Arne
>
> --
>
> Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
> open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
> Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
> Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
> Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
> Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
> arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de
> http://www.openknowledge.de
>
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
> Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Pete Muir
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:08
> An: Mark Struberg
> Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:06, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>>> The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just there
>>> is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
>
> Ok, so until I actually see someone make a specific comment, I think
> we can leave this alone :-)
>
>>
>>
>>> Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
>>
>> I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is
pretty well hidden in the specs).
>> And people wondered why that doesn't work ...
>
> Ok, file an issue, we can think about how to improve this.
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
6:09 a.m.
OK :-) no problem,
Mark or me will file an issue for this. I'll take a look if I can provide a
pull-request for this.
Cheers,
Arne
--
Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de
http://www.openknowledge.de
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:22
An: Arne Limburg
Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
I think you misunderstood me, I asked Mark (or anyone) to file an issue so that we can
specify this ;-) I'm not doing it right now as I'm in the middle of refactor of
Infinispan ;-)
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:18, Arne Limburg wrote:
Hi Pete,
Obviously the current implementations (at least Weld and OpenWebBeans) need special
handling for this case. From a user perspective it would be convenient to be able to do a
beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class). That is the only way currently to list all available
Beans, which is needed from time to time. Since I am always a fan of seeing things from
the users perspective, so why not specifying this?
Cheers,
Arne
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:13
An: Arne Limburg
Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
Right, this is the obvious solution, (well actually we would specify
that a bean is registered for Instance as well as Instance<X> rather
than fiddle with the resolution rules). I'm not sure if there any
problems right now ;-)
On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:11, Arne Limburg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> wouldn't be so hard to specify that
> beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class); is the same as
> beanManager.getBeans(new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>()
> {}.getType());
>
> Cheers,
> Arne
>
> --
>
> Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
> open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
> Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
> Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
> Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
> Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
> arne.limburg(a)openknowledge.de
> http://www.openknowledge.de
>
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
> Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Pete Muir
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:08
> An: Mark Struberg
> Cc: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:06, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>>> The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just
>>> there is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
>
> Ok, so until I actually see someone make a specific comment, I think
> we can leave this alone :-)
>
>>
>>
>>> Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
>>
>> I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is
pretty well hidden in the specs).
>> And people wondered why that doesn't work ...
>
> Ok, file an issue, we can think about how to improve this.
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
4608
days inactive
4609
days old
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Arne Limburg -
Mark Struberg -
Pete Muir