Here is the quote from 7.6
"Whenever the @Fires annotation appears at an injection point, an
implicit bean exists with:
• exactly the bean type and bindings that appear at the injection point,
• deployment type @Standard,
• @Dependent scope,
• no bean name, and
• an implementation provided automatically by the container. "
So, really, it depends on what "an implicit bean" means. I would
assert that it means that a bean exists that is registered with the
Manager. Gavin?
On 28 Feb 2009, at 10:48, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Hi guys,
While executing the standalone TCK tests related with "Event and
Observers", I tackled the one point.
Specification says that whenever the bean uses the @Fires annotation
on its class field, like @Fires Event<T>, container provides the
implicit bean component. But it does/may not say that you have to
add this implicit bean component to the "Manager"'s beans bag. So
when resolving the implicit event object with Manager#resolveByType
method, our implementation returns no bean.
What we do is that whenever the field injection is annotated with
@Fires, we create a new implicit bean object and add it into the
bean Dependent context, but not add this implicit bean into the
Manager's bag.
But in the TCK, it requires that Manager adds this implicit bean
into its bag.
Actually, these are also applied for all implicit beans except the
Manager and Conversation beans.
WDYT?
/Gurkan
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete