Re: [weld-dev] Generic Decorator
Pete Muir wrote:
This looks like an out of date check...
OK, thanks. Actually, I just noticed that the example in the
introduction of the specification is showing exactly this use case.
I would, however, like to clarify whether the following use case is
acceptable (was driven to this while handling @Inject GenericBean<T>):
class Receiver
{
@Inject Injected<String> injected;
}
@Dependent
class Injected<T>
{
public void Injected() {} // making clear that this satisfies the
conditions for a generic managed bean
}
class StringInjectedProducer
{
@Produces Injected<String> produce() { ... }
}
Looking carefully, it shouldn't, since Receiver.injected has ambiguous
dependencies (on one hand Injected per se, on the other hand, the
producer method). A qualifier can help disambiguating between the two
situations.
If the statement above is correct, then ProducerFieldDefinitionTest in
the TCK could be adjusted, since FunnelWeaver and pals
(FunnelWeaverSpiderProducer and FunnelWeaverSpiderConsumer) illustrate
exactly this behaviour (simple qualification will solve the ambiguity).
Marius