[weld-dev] Validating for fields that are annotated with both EJB and Inject

[Matej Novotny]

+1 to what Martin says, I've seen similar scenarios.

Matej

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Kouba" <mkouba at redhat.com>
> To: "Emily Jiang" <emijiang6 at googlemail.com>, "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC at uk.ibm.com>
> Cc: "Weld-Dev List" <weld-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:53:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [weld-dev] Validating for fields that are annotated with both EJB and Inject
> 
> Dne 15. 04. 20 v 12:42 Emily Jiang napsal(a):
> > Matej,
> > 
> > Since @Inject can only work with a qualifier annotation not anything
> > other annotations,
> 
> That's not correct. You can add any annotation to an injection point.
> I've seen it several times where a framework inspected the
> InjectionPoint to find certain annotations that have no meaning in CDI.
> 
> 
> > do you think adding a validation criteria to assert
> > that is acceptable?
> > For IDE validation, it is quite limited because a lot of work needs to
> > be done via runtime to figure out whether the 2nd annotation is a CDI
> > qualifier or not.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Emily
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:28 PM Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC at uk.ibm.com
> > <mailto:BENJAMIC at uk.ibm.com>> wrote:
> > 
> >     Hello weld
> > 
> >     I had a customer with an issue that I believe occurred because they
> >     annotated a field with both @Inject and @EJB. This has given me two
> >     questions:
> > 
> >     1) Should weld throw an error when a field is annotated with both
> >     annotations?
> > 
> >     2) If so is the correct way to add something like
> > 
> >       if (ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(Inject.class) &&
> >     ij.getAnnotated().isAnnotationPresent(EJB.class)) {
> >          throw ...
> >     }
> > 
> >     to Validator.validateInjectionPointForDefinitionErrors()
> > 
> >     If so I'm willing to create a pull request, all I'd need is for you
> >     to tell me what the error message should say and please point me to
> >     which test I should expand to cover this case.
> > 
> >     Regards
> >     Benjamin
> >     Unless stated otherwise above:
> >     IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> >     number 741598.
> >     Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> >     PO6 3AU
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     weld-dev mailing list
> >     weld-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:weld-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Emily
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > weld-dev mailing list
> > weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
> > 
> 
> --
> Martin Kouba
> Senior Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Czech Republic
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> weld-dev mailing list
> weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev