On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Matt Drees <matt.drees(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> ++ Clarify that scope types should not have members
> The spec should mention that @ScopeType annotations should not have
> annotation members. Perhaps this should be a definition error.
> javax.inject.Scope already mentions this.
I'm sure you meant @NormalScope.
Can I ask what the motivation is for preventing annotation members on
annotations? I could imagine some custom scopes needing some extra
metadata, and the scope annotation seems like a handy place to put it.
Well, the thing is that our SPI provides no way for an implementation
of Context to get access to the annotation members for a certain Bean.
Bean.getScope() returns the Class, not the Annotation.
> ++ Clarify that interceptors/decorators don't apply to
> resolution rules
I don't understand. 7.2 seems to explicitly state that
interceptors/decorators *do* apply to producer methods. Can you clarify?
They apply to the method call (but these are interceptors/decorators
that belong to the bean that declares the method, not to the method
itself). The object returned does not have interceptors/decorators
So, I think it'd be very helpful to have a section devoted to
dependencies. Some kind of cyclic dependencies are ok while others are not,
and I think we can enumerate these.
Is this maintenance release an appropriate time to address this
(I haven't yet checked how Weld handles this)
Propose some language :-)
Also, I'm a little surprised your list didn't contain a
API. Is this too big of a thing for a maintenance release? It seems pretty
important to me.
I think it's quite big for the maintenance release, though I agree
that it's important.