[cdi-dev] Minutes from EG meeting 20/08/2012

[Stuart Douglas]

That would also be fine. 

Stuart

On 22/08/2012, at 8:06 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:

> Or just say that if you want to add >1 annotated type based on the same class you must specify a unique id for it?
> 
> On 21 Aug 2012, at 23:00, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> 
>> I have actually been thinking about this. What if we say that any additional added AnnotatedTypes are not passivation capable, but then add an additional version of addAnnotatedType() where the extension explicitly specifies the bean id to make it passivation capable? 
>