[cdi-dev] Bean defining annotations

[Antoine Sabot-Durand]

I agree Jozef. We started on this re-definifition of bean defining annotations sets to correct CDI-377, but if we can check all class annotation (and perhaps more depending of CDI-408 resolution) in CDI, it would be a cleaner job. Can you create the ticket for that ?

Antoine


> Le 12 mars 2014 à 10:08, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> a écrit :
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> the CDI spec change, which adds @Interceptor, @Decorator and stereotypes 
>> to the set of bean defining annotations, was merged. This made me think 
>> whether this approach where we add annotations based on demand is the 
>> right one. Instead, I think we should review all the annotations defined 
>> in the CDI API and evaluate if it makes to have them as bean defining 
>> annotations. I think that this would yield more consistent and less 
>> ad-hoc result.
>> 
>> Two candidates that come to mind are @Alternative and @Specializes.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>> 
>> Jozef
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20140312/29eb9102/attachment.bin