[cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'

[Arne Limburg]

OK :-) no problem,
Mark or me will file an issue for this. I'll take a look if I can provide a pull-request for this.

Cheers,
Arne

--
 
Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
arne.limburg at openknowledge.de
http://www.openknowledge.de

Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir at redhat.com] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:22
An: Arne Limburg
Cc: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'

I think you misunderstood me, I asked Mark (or anyone) to file an issue so that we can specify this ;-) I'm not doing it right now as I'm in the middle of refactor of Infinispan ;-)

On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:18, Arne Limburg wrote:

> Hi Pete,
> 
> Obviously the current implementations (at least Weld and OpenWebBeans) need special handling for this case. From a user perspective it would be convenient to be able to do a beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class). That is the only way currently to list all available Beans, which is needed from time to time. Since I am always a fan of seeing things from the users perspective, so why not specifying this?
> 
> Cheers,
> Arne
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir at redhat.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:13
> An: Arne Limburg
> Cc: Mark Struberg; cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
> 
> Right, this is the obvious solution, (well actually we would specify 
> that a bean is registered for Instance as well as Instance<X> rather 
> than fiddle with the resolution rules). I'm not sure if there any 
> problems right now ;-)
> 
> On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:11, Arne Limburg wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> wouldn't be so hard to specify that
>> beanManager.getBeans(Instance.class); is the same as 
>> beanManager.getBeans(new TypeLiteral<Instance<Object>>() 
>> {}.getType());
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Arne
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Arne Limburg - Enterprise Architekt
>> open knowledge GmbH, Oldenburg
>> Bismarckstraße 13, 26122 Oldenburg
>> Mobil: +49 (0) 151 108 22 942
>> Tel: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-0
>> Fax: +49 (0) 441 - 4082-111
>> arne.limburg at openknowledge.de
>> http://www.openknowledge.de
>> 
>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
>> Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: cdi-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org 
>> [mailto:cdi-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Pete Muir
>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. September 2011 22:08
>> An: Mark Struberg
>> Cc: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Clarification for manually resolving 'Instance'
>> 
>> 
>> On 25 Sep 2011, at 21:06, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> 
>>>> The parameterized type resolution rules are correct, it's just 
>>>> there is no raw type of Instance to resolve.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, I think too, but was not sure if everyone do see it that way.
>> 
>> Ok, so until I actually see someone make a specific comment, I think 
>> we can leave this alone :-)
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Should there be? Not sure if it would just be more confusing?
>>> 
>>> I already saw the usage of Instance.class without the TypeLiteral (which is pretty well hidden in the specs).
>>> And people wondered why that doesn't work ...
>> 
>> Ok, file an issue, we can think about how to improve this.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>