[webbeans-dev] Is @Named qualifier?

[Pete Muir]

We (Gavin for Red Hat) disputed that @Named should be a spec provided  
qualifier, due to it promoting poor coding practices, however we were  
over ruled.

Reusing it for defining the EL name does make sense semantically to  
me. In general qualifiers are used in resolution, in the "by name"  
case, we have a special qualifier. Whilst CDI and atinject don't  
expose anything to JNDI, you could easily write an extension that used  
@Named for this purpose.

On 4 Sep 2009, at 19:29, Dan Allen wrote:

> And there lies the problem of trying to use these as common  
> annotations. At this point I defer to Gavin because clearly it must  
> be clarified in the spec. 299 doesn't deal with exposing a bean to  
> JNDI unless I am overlooking something.
>
> - Dan Allen
>
> Sent from my Android-powered G1 phone:
> An open platform for carriers, developers
> and consumers.
>
>
>> On Sep 4, 2009 2:20 PM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> But in JSR-330 the @Named has nothing to do with EL! It's really a  
>> qualifier like e.g. a JNDI name or a named Spring bean!
>> LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Dan Allen  
>> <dan.j.allen at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Dan Allen <da...
>>
>> > Cc: webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org, "Takeshi Kondo" <takeshi.kondo at gmail.com 
>> >
>> > Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:14 PM
>> > My question was retorical. I don't > get how it is a qualifier.  
>> It violates the whole type-safety ...
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev