[weld-dev] CDITCK-174 - ProcessObserverMethod type parameters

[Scott Ferguson]

Pete Muir wrote:
> Hi Scott
>
> From the spec,
>
> "The event object must be of type javax.enterprise.inject.spi.ProcessObserverMethod<T, X>, where T is the bean
> class of the bean that declares the observer method and X is the observed event type of the observer method.
>
> public interface ProcessObserverMethod<T, X> { 
>    public AnnotatedParameter<T> getAnnotatedEventParameter(); 
>    public ObserverMethod<X> getObserverMethod(); 
>    public void addDefinitionError(Throwable t);
> }
> "
>
> It looks like this has got completely wrong against the javadoc and signatures released with the spec, I will go to the EE CTS guys and see what the best path forward is, however I suspect it is unfixable until we do a MR. I will also go back in and fix this test so that it works correctly against the API as defined in the javadoc.
>   

Thanks Pete.

I'd checked against the latest API and Weld but both were using the 
javadoc not the spec, so I wasn't sure which way the changes were going. 
So it's basically the same issue as the IF_EXISTS attribute name.

-- Scott

> Pete
>
>
>
>
> On 18 Nov 2010, at 00:07, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Pete,
>>
>> I'm looking at the TCK snapshot and at CDITCK-174, but I don't 
>> understand the change. The original looks correct to me and I don't see 
>> how the new change is supposed to work or why it was made.
>>
>> In ProcessObserverMethodErrorTest, there's a listener:
>>
>> public void observeObserverMethodForEventB(
>>  @Observes ProcessObserverMethod<?,EventB> event
>> );
>>
>> But the ProcessObserverMethod is defined as
>>
>> public interface ProcessObserverMethod<T,X> {
>>  public ObserverMethod<T> getObserverMethod();
>>  public AnnotatedMethod<X> getAnnotatedMethod();
>>  public void addDefinitionError(Throwable t);
>> }
>>
>> In other words, "T" is the type of the event and "X" is the type of the 
>> listener, but the observer flips those around.
>>
>> I double checked with the latest weld and with cdi-api.sig, but it 
>> doesn't look like the ProcessObserverMethod itself has changed.
>>
>> Is there something I'm missing?
>>
>> -- Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> weld-dev mailing list
>> weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
>>     
>
>
>
>
>