[webbeans-dev] TCK Question

[Pete Muir]

Here is the quote from 7.6

"Whenever the @Fires annotation appears at an injection point, an  
implicit bean exists with:
• exactly the bean type and bindings that appear at the injection point,
• deployment type @Standard,
• @Dependent scope,
• no bean name, and
• an implementation provided automatically by the container. "

So, really, it depends on what "an implicit bean" means. I would  
assert that it means that a bean exists that is registered with the  
Manager. Gavin?


On 28 Feb 2009, at 10:48, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> While executing the standalone TCK tests related with "Event and  
> Observers", I tackled the one point.
>
> Specification says that whenever the bean uses the @Fires annotation  
> on its class field, like @Fires Event<T>, container provides the  
> implicit bean component. But it does/may not say that you have to  
> add this implicit bean component to the "Manager"'s beans bag. So  
> when resolving the implicit event object with Manager#resolveByType  
> method, our implementation returns no bean.
>
> What we do is that whenever the field injection is annotated with  
> @Fires, we create a new implicit bean object and add it into the  
> bean Dependent context, but not add this implicit bean into the  
> Manager's bag.
>
> But in the TCK, it requires that Manager adds this implicit bean  
> into its bag.
>
> Actually, these are also applied for all implicit beans except the  
> Manager and Conversation beans.
>
> WDYT?
>
> /Gurkan
>
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev

--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete