[cdi-dev] CDI-508 - Which java classes can be managed beans

[Tomas Remes]

Hi,

Yes this proposal is sufficient and reads better. I can change my PR if there aren't any further objections?

Thank's
Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Kouba" <mkouba at redhat.com>
To: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament at gmail.com>, cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 8:12:44 AM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI-508 - Which java classes can be managed beans

Hi all,

given that local and anonymous classes are special kinds of inner 
classes, we could also simply change the sentence to:

"It is not an inner class."

Anyway, I think the change of the first sentence is much more important, 
i.e. removing the "top-level"...

Maybe we should also remove "top-level" from the next sentence:
"It is a top-level non-abstract class, or is annotated `@Decorator`."

So that we would end up with:

A Java class is a managed bean if it meets all of the following conditions:
* It is not an inner class.
* It is a non-abstract class, or is annotated `@Decorator`.
* It does not implement `javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension`.
* It is not annotated `@Vetoed` or in a package annotated `@Vetoed`.
* It has an appropriate constructor - either:

What do you think?

Martin


Dne 4.5.2016 v 02:32 John D. Ament napsal(a):
> All,
>
> I think I had an action item to get this clarified, not 100% sure, but
> let me give this a shot.
>
> Tomas raised a PR for CDI-508 to clarify which classes are meant to be
> managed beans.  You can find that PR here:
> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/282/
>
> The line that doesn't sound right to me in the change is to go from:
>
> It is not a non-static inner class.
>
> to
>
> It is not a non-static nested class.
>
> I'll use the java programming language tutorial as a point of reference,
> you can read the page I'll refer to here:
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/nested.html
>
> Basically, non-static nested classes are AKA inner classes.  The term
> "non-static inner class" shouldn't exist, and that means the original
> text doesn't make sense, and should probably be inferred as "It is not
> an inner class"
>
>  From reading this part of the spec, it becomes unreadable due to the
> double negative (probably why the aka exists).  My proposal was to
> change the line to instead read (in a positive way) "It is a static
> nested class" but I can also understand if we want to do this in an
> exclusion pattern rather than an inclusion pattern.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>

-- 
Martin Kouba
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.