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

[Matej Novotny]

Sounds feasible, +1

Matej

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tomas Remes" <tremes at redhat.com>
> To: "Martin Kouba" <mkouba at redhat.com>
> Cc: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 9:12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI-508 - Which java classes can be managed beans
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>