So i confirm what i said, ArrayList<T> can be for String, Foo....so i think
classes should follow it, just match what i expect since i could do it in
plain old java
Le 6 juil. 2013 10:18, "Arne Limburg" <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> a
écrit :
> Forgot to mention that T is an unbound type variable at class level:
>
>
> public class MethodTypeProduces1<T>
>
> and there is no subclass of MethodTypeProduces1
>
>
> Am 06.07.13 10:12 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter
> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Wait, not sure google ate a part of the code or not but if a <T> then T
> >can
> >be String (like ArrayList itself)
> >Le 6 juil. 2013 09:18, "Arne Limburg" <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> a
> >écrit :
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am currently struggling with the handling of generics in OWB, because
> >> CDI 1.1 TCK requires us to be much more clever than we are now in this
> >>area.
> >> However I stumbled about a test in our test-suite that seems to be wrong
> >> to me, but I would like to have another opinion.
> >> With my local implementation of the generic handling (which is much
> >>better
> >> than the one in trunk) the following tests fails:
> >> MethodProducer1Test.testPersonProducer
> >>
> >> Basically it tests if an ArrayList with an unbound type variable is
> >> injectable into an injection point of type ArrayList<String>:
> >>
> >> @Produces @Dependent @Named("ProMethodParameterized3")
> >>
> >> ArrayList<T> methodPT3() {...}
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> @Inject ArrayList<String> pt3;
> >>
> >> Reading 5.2.4 of the CDI 1.1 spec (the fourth bullet point) I would
> >> suggest that this should lead to an error since String is not assignable
> >> from Object (which is the upper bound of T).
> >>
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Arne
> >>
>
>
