Thanks but IMO this is quite complex for such a normal requirement. Is there any chance to discuss this with the expert group? Maybe we could implement in OWB after a successful discussion.
2013/10/29 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > you could create a CDI Extension which does the > ProcessAnnotatedType.veto(). > > You could also try to use DeltaSpike globalAlternatives for it. This > should do pretty much what you like and internally also works with veto(). > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]> > >To: [email protected]; Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >Sent: Tuesday, 29 October 2013, 21:43 > >Subject: Re: Alternative + Named > > > > > > > >Hi Mark, > > > >is there any change to get similar behavior? > >It's actually a must-have for product development. > >We would like to have multiple implementations in our core and just > active them via alternative. > >With @Specialized or @Exclude, i can't do it without code changes :/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2013/10/29 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > >Gee, I fear this is not really well specified. > >>I'd rather not bet for it to work. > >>Honestly I would have expected that an AmbiguousResolutionException gets > thrown. > >> > >>I'd use @Exclude or @Specializes in this case. > >> > >>LieGrue, > >>strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]> > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Cc: > >>> Sent: Tuesday, 29 October 2013, 21:23 > >>> Subject: Alternative + Named > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> should it actually be possible to overwrite a bean with a alternative > named > >>> bean? > >>> > >>> e.g -> > >>> > >>> @Named public class A > >>> > >>> with a activated > >>> > >>> @Named("a") @Alternative public class A extends B > >>> > >>> > >>> This somehow just works randomly. Every X container startup, the right > bean > >>> will be used with EL. > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Thomas > >>> > >> > > > > > > >
