[cdi-dev] Bean defining annotations

[Jozef Hartinger]

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-427

On 03/12/2014 10:46 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:
> 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