Well, it doesn't really mean anything in particular... On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Gavin, > > I think it would be helpful if the spec had an explicit definition of > "implicit bean" as this is not (AFAIK) a well known term... > > Thanks :-) > > -- > Pete Muir > http://www.seamframework.org > http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete > > -- Gavin King gavin.king(a)gmail.com http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin http://hibernate.org http://seamframework.org

Is there some reason why you should *not* be able to look it up using Managed.resolveByXXX()? Or is the question really: can I get one of these things using Managed.resolveByXXX() if I have never injected it anywhere?

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Really, the query is whether an implicit bean can be looked by > manager.resolveByXXX() - this is necessary to know for the TCK. If > it is not > required (undefined) or required I think the spec should say... > > On 7 May 2009, at 03:20, Gavin King wrote: > >> Well, it doesn't really mean anything in particular... >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> Gavin, >>> >>> I think it would be helpful if the spec had an explicit >>> definition of >>> "implicit bean" as this is not (AFAIK) a well known term... >>> >>> Thanks :-) >>> >>> -- >>> Pete Muir >>> http://www.seamframework.org >>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gavin King >> gavin.king(a)gmail.com >> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin >> http://hibernate.org >> http://seamframework.org > > -- > Pete Muir > http://www.seamframework.org > http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete > > -- Gavin King gavin.king(a)gmail.com http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin http://hibernate.org http://seamframework.org