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