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
> object with Manager#resolveByType method, our implementation returns no
> 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
> Actually, these are also applied for all implicit beans except the Manager
> and Conversation beans.
> webbeans-dev mailing list