[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-319) Reword part of the @Vetoed section

[Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)]

     [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-319?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Jozef Hartinger reopened CDI-319:
---------------------------------



{quote}If packages annotated @Vetoed are split across *jars*, non-portable behavior results.{quote}

*jar* is not entirely accurate. More accurate would be to say "split across *bean archives*"
                
> Reword part of the @Vetoed section
> ----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CDI-319
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-319
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Clarification
>            Reporter: Martin Kouba
>            Assignee: Pete Muir
>             Fix For: 1.1.FD
>
>
> I think the current wording of 3.13 "Vetoing types" is misleading now. E.g. @Vetoed on annotation (qualifier, stereotype) has no effect. Also the spec wording should be synced with @Vetoed javadoc.
> To sum it up: @Vetoed affects classes, interfaces, enums.
> * class -> no container lifecycle event (PAT), no bean or observer methods defined by the class will be installed
> * interface, enum -> no container lifecycle event (PAT)
> I suggest something similar:
> {quote}
> Any Java class, interface, enum or package may be prevented from being considered by CDI by adding the @Vetoed annotation.
> In particular, 
> * any beans or observer methods defined by a class annotated with @Vetoed will not be installed
> * no container lifecycle events are fired for classes, interfaces or enums annotated with @Vetoed
> * when @Vetoed placed on package, all classes, interfaces or enums in the package are prevented from being considered by CDI
> {quote}
> The rest is ok.

--
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