I don't understand. The deployment tool already has to look at them to
see if they are annotated @ManagedBean, right?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Roberto Chinnici
<Roberto.Chinnici(a)sun.com> wrote:
Jason T. Greene wrote:
>
> Roberto Chinnici wrote:
>>
>> Gavin King wrote:
>>>
>>> You have provided no argumentation in support of "should not".
>>>
>>> Whereas I have provided a Very Good Reason why they *should* be
>>> injectable, with limited semantics, using the special @New annotation.
>>>
>>
>> OK, let me ask you a simpler question: if I have a web module, say,
>> without a beans.xml
>> descriptor, can I lookup a BeanManager in JNDI under
>> java:comp/BeanManager? Currently
>> the platform spec says you can't.
>>
>
> Are we all talking about the same thing? Earlier you mentioned use the
> term "bean" instead of "class". Are you having an issue with the
> terminology, or is it the capability you have a problem with?
>
> To be clear, when you say @New blah, the resulting bean instance belongs
> to the beanmanager associated with the injection point. The "first"
> instance, if it even exists, is not touched in any way by 299. So all we are
> talking about is a way to reference any class that fits the rules of a 299
> bean. In other words, anything which can be a 299 bean, has a "new"
instance
> implicitly created. The source of that bean is not really important, other
> than it has to be visible to the classloader.
My issue is that I need to know at deployment time what components exist in
the application, so I can do the right thing wrt @Resource and friends.
The terminology is important because bean implies component. If you called
"a class that fits the rules of a 299 bean" a pre-bean, for example, then I
think I could reasonably excuse the deployment tool from having to look at
them.
--
Gavin King
gavin.king(a)gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org