[cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information?

[Mark Struberg]

Hi!

There are still subtle differences open. E.g. should annotations from a superclass ct get resolved if they have @Inherited? 

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Mon, 5/23/11, Peter Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:

> From: Peter Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information?
> To: "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg at openknowledge.de>
> Cc: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>, "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Monday, May 23, 2011, 9:48 PM
> I think it's ok now
> 
> --
> Pete Muir
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete

> 
> On 23 May 2011, at 22:41, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg at openknowledge.de>
> wrote:
> 
> > Maybe we should explicitly state that AnnotatedType
> contains superclass information. Currently it's implicit
> because of my wording and the fact, that Annotations on
> superclasses are processed (i.e. @Inject on superclasses
> works).
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Arne
> > 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Peter Muir [mailto:pmuir at redhat.com]
> 
> > Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:28
> > An: Arne Limburg
> > Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also
> reflect inherited information?
> > 
> > Yes, AnnotatedType is the *only* source of metadata,
> reflection must not be used. Arne's wording is in HEAD.
> > 
> > --
> > Pete Muir
> > http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete

> > 
> > On 23 May 2011, at 22:25, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg at openknowledge.de>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> My suggestions on this will make it clear for CDI
> 1.1:
> >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-70

> >> With this clarifications the current
> implementation in OWB would be illegal since it introspects
> the superclass using reflection instead of using the
> AnnotatedType (which currently would not work, since the
> AnnotatedType does not contain this information).
> >> 
> >> The problem here is, that if the AnnotatedType
> does not contain information of superclass hierarchy (like
> currently in OWB), there is no way for Extensions to modify
> annotations of superclasses (i.e. add a qualifier to an
> @Inject-field or -method). Nothing seems to indicate that
> this was the intention of the CDI 1.0 spec ;-)
> >> 
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Arne
> >> 
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: cdi-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org]
> Im Auftrag von Mark Struberg
> >> Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 23:13
> >> An: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> Betreff: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also
> reflect inherited information?
> >> 
> >> Hi!
> >> 
> >> I think the spec is not explicit on this question:
> Should the AnnotatedType delivered to the Extensions as
> parameter or via BeanManager#getAnnostatedType() also
> deliver information gathered from it's superclass
> hierarchy?
> >> 
> >> Sounds reasonable, but is nowhere explicitely
> defined. Thus I better ask ;)
> >> 
> >> txs and LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cdi-dev mailing list
> >> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cdi-dev mailing list
> >> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

>