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

[Pete Muir]

What does "resolved" mean in this case?

On 23 May 2011, at 22:51, Mark Struberg wrote:

> 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
> 
>>