On 7 May 2009, at 13:58, Gavin King wrote:
Is there some reason why you should *not* be able to look it up
Or is the question really: can I get one of these things using
Managed.resolveByXXX() if I have never injected it anywhere?
Right. The way OWB implemented implicit beans was that they were never
resolvable (hence why this issue came up for clarification).
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Really, the query is whether an implicit bean can be looked by
> manager.resolveByXXX() - this is necessary to know for the TCK. If
> it is not
> required (undefined) or required I think the spec should say...
> On 7 May 2009, at 03:20, Gavin King wrote:
>> Well, it doesn't really mean anything in particular...
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I think it would be helpful if the spec had an explicit
>>> definition of
>>> "implicit bean" as this is not (AFAIK) a well known term...
>>> Thanks :-)
>>> Pete Muir
>> Gavin King
> Pete Muir