8:14 p.m.
My question was retorical. I don't get how it is a qualifier. It violates
the whole type-safety approach. Having an EL name is orthogonal to having a
qualifier.
- Dan Allen
Sent from my Android-powered G1 phone:
An open platform for carriers, developers
and consumers.
On Sep 4, 2009 1:48 PM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de> wrote:
apparently yes:
http://atinject.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/javax/inject/Named.java
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] Is @Named qualifier?
To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
Cc: "Takeshi Kondo" <takeshi.kondo(a)gmail.com>,
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 6:36 PM
@Named is a qualifier in 330? That makes > absolutely no sense. I
think
that linkage should be > s...
8:20 p.m.
New subject: [webbeans-dev] Is @Named qualifier?
But in JSR-330 the @Named has nothing to do with EL! It's really a qualifier like e.g.
a JNDI name or a named Spring bean!
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] Is @Named qualifier?
To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
Cc: webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, "Takeshi Kondo"
<takeshi.kondo(a)gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:14 PM
My question was retorical. I don't
get how it is a qualifier. It violates the whole type-safety
approach. Having an EL name is orthogonal to having a
qualifier.
- Dan Allen
Sent from my Android-powered G1 phone:
An open platform for carriers, developers
and consumers.
On Sep 4, 2009 1:48 PM,
"Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
wrote:
apparently yes:
http://atinject.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/javax/inject/Named.java
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> From: Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] Is @Named qualifier?
> To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
> Cc: "Takeshi Kondo" <takeshi.kondo(a)gmail.com>,
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 6:36 PM
> @Named is a qualifier in 330?
That makes
> absolutely no sense. I think that linkage should be
> s...
8:29 p.m.
New subject: [webbeans-dev] Is @Named qualifier?
And there lies the problem of trying to use these as common annotations. At
this point I defer to Gavin because clearly it must be clarified in the
spec. 299 doesn't deal with exposing a bean to JNDI unless I am overlooking
something.
- Dan Allen
Sent from my Android-powered G1 phone:
An open platform for carriers, developers
and consumers.
On Sep 4, 2009 2:20 PM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de> wrote:
But in JSR-330 the @Named has nothing to do with EL! It's really a qualifier
like e.g. a JNDI name or a named Spring bean!
LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Dan Allen <da...
Cc: webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, "Takeshi Kondo" <takeshi.kondo(a)gmail.com
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:14 PM
My question was retorical. I don't > get how it is a
qualifier. It
violates the whole type-safety ...
8:50 a.m.
New subject: [webbeans-dev] Is @Named qualifier?
We (Gavin for Red Hat) disputed that @Named should be a spec provided
qualifier, due to it promoting poor coding practices, however we were
over ruled.
Reusing it for defining the EL name does make sense semantically to
me. In general qualifiers are used in resolution, in the "by name"
case, we have a special qualifier. Whilst CDI and atinject don't
expose anything to JNDI, you could easily write an extension that used
@Named for this purpose.
On 4 Sep 2009, at 19:29, Dan Allen wrote:
And there lies the problem of trying to use these as common
annotations. At this point I defer to Gavin because clearly it must
be clarified in the spec. 299 doesn't deal with exposing a bean to
JNDI unless I am overlooking something.
- Dan Allen
Sent from my Android-powered G1 phone:
An open platform for carriers, developers
and consumers.
> On Sep 4, 2009 2:20 PM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> But in JSR-330 the @Named has nothing to do with EL! It's really a
> qualifier like e.g. a JNDI name or a named Spring bean!
> LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Dan Allen
> <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: Dan Allen <da...
>
> > Cc: webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, "Takeshi Kondo"
<takeshi.kondo(a)gmail.com
> >
> > Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:14 PM
> > My question was retorical. I don't > get how it is a qualifier.
> It violates the whole type-safety ...
>
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
11:39 a.m.
New subject: [webbeans-dev] Is @Named qualifier?
I agree.
I've rethought about using @Named as EL name.
I think that it is not bad idea.
When we want to inject named component we write code as follows.
@Named("request")
HttpServletRequest request.
We can know EL name from this code.
In presentation logic we need to know EL name.
Takeshi Kondo
On 2009/09/05, at 15:50, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
We (Gavin for Red Hat) disputed that @Named should be a spec
provided
qualifier, due to it promoting poor coding practices, however we were
over ruled.
Reusing it for defining the EL name does make sense semantically to
me. In general qualifiers are used in resolution, in the "by name"
case, we have a special qualifier. Whilst CDI and atinject don't
expose anything to JNDI, you could easily write an extension that used
@Named for this purpose.
On 4 Sep 2009, at 19:29, Dan Allen wrote:
> And there lies the problem of trying to use these as common
> annotations. At this point I defer to Gavin because clearly it must
> be clarified in the spec. 299 doesn't deal with exposing a bean to
> JNDI unless I am overlooking something.
>
> - Dan Allen
>
> Sent from my Android-powered G1 phone:
> An open platform for carriers, developers
> and consumers.
>
>
>> On Sep 4, 2009 2:20 PM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
wrote:
>>
>> But in JSR-330 the @Named has nothing to do with EL! It's really a
>> qualifier like e.g. a JNDI name or a named Spring bean!
>> LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Dan Allen
>> <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: Dan Allen <da...
>>
>>> Cc: webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, "Takeshi Kondo"
<takeshi.kondo(a)gmail.com
>>>
>>> Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:14 PM
>>> My question was retorical. I don't > get how it is a qualifier.
>> It violates the whole type-safety ...
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
5347
days inactive
5348
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dan Allen -
Mark Struberg -
Pete Muir -
Takeshi Kondo