I'm not convinced that's an error.
In that case the docs and examples would be wrong. Do you get errors
using the nonimpl class at runtime ?
Remember the whole point is that you can configure beans abstractly
and then at runtime they are instantiated with the concrete instances.
/max (sent from my phone)
On 07/10/2011, at 18.54, Viacheslav Kabanovich <scabanovich(a)exadel.com> wrote:
Hi, Max
org.jboss.seam.security.Identity is an interface and cannot be configured as a managed
bean in config xml.
org.jboss.seam.security.IdentityImpl is ok to be configured.
I added validation that marks configuring abstract types as errors in JBIDE-9834 last
week.
Slava
On 10/07/2011 04:53 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> Hi Slava/Alexey,
>
> Have you seen this thread:
http://seamframework.org/Community/SecurityCannotResolveMemberInNodeSecur...
> referenced from
http://community.jboss.org/message/630545#630545
>
> It sounds very wrong that the Impl name is the correct one.
>
> Is the tool not validating wrong here ?
>
> /max
>
http://about.me/maxandersen
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev