[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-282) Vetoing types - clarify consequences

Martin Kouba (JIRA) jira-events at lists.jboss.org
Mon Jan 14 02:56:21 EST 2013

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-282?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12745547#comment-12745547 ] 

Martin Kouba commented on CDI-282:

Well, it makes sense not to support it. This issue was raised with PAT for annotations in mind, which is not relevant any more. But the use case I was originally thinking of was @Vetoed used on package.
> Vetoing types - clarify consequences
> ------------------------------------
>                 Key: CDI-282
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-282
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Clarification
>            Reporter: Martin Kouba
>            Assignee: Pete Muir
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 1.1.PFD
> The spec currently says {{@Vetoed}} type is *prevented from being considered by CDI* and {{ProcessAnnotatedType.veto()}} forces the container to ignore the type. This is quite obvious for classes and interfaces. However not so clear when vetoing annotations (e.g. qualifier). I think ignoring means not being considered as qualifier (thus affects resolution). Other (rather theoretical) example is vetoing non-contextual instances - should it prevent performing dependency injection?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list