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

[Pete Muir]

Agreed, this isn't clear. Can you file a CDI clarification request?

On 24 May 2011, at 15:20, Mark Struberg wrote:

> When initially building the AnnotatedType (e.g. before handing it over to the Extensions) we need to pre-fill them with the info from the annotations from the classes. 
> 
> Should this AnnotatedType:
> 1.) contain no annotations from superclasses?
> 2.) contain all annotations from superclasses? 
> 3.) contain @Inherited annotations from superclasses?
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> --- On Tue, 5/24/11, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>> Subject: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Should AnnotatedType also reflect inherited information?
>> To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>
>> Cc: "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg at openknowledge.de>, "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 11:03 AM
>> 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
>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>