[cdi-dev] Accepting class type for simple (qualifier) annotations in APIs?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Think it is maybe saner to have AnnotationProvider.of(type, params) (like
in deltaspike) since it doesnt leave the parameterized annotations (which
are not rare) next the road.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
<https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>

2016-09-12 12:28 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Wouldn't it be convenient as the CDI API that now requires an Annotation
> instance in various APIs, would also accept the class type of that
> Annotation?
>
> E.g. in BeanManager there's this method:
>
> Set<Bean<?>> getBeans(Type beanType, Annotation... qualifiers)
>
> This not rarely requires one to create an AnnotationLiteral, which is not
> specifically difficult but a tad verbose. For qualifiers that have no
> (binding) attributes, a simple Class would be much easier to use.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Kind regards,
> Arjan Tijms
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20160912/091b6919/attachment-0001.html