Hey Mark,

i also posted it in the ticket:
webbeans-impl\src\test\java\org\apache\webbeans\newtests\specalization\multiple

I just commented @Test, to not break the build.

Regards,
Thomas


2013/11/28 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>

> what is the name of the unit test? Or to which JIRA did you attach it?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]>
> >To: [email protected]
> >Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2013, 13:04
> >Subject: Re: 1.2.1 - @Specialized Class : XXX may not explicitly declare
> a bean name
> >
> >
> >Hi Gerhard,
> >
> >i added a unit test.
> >It only occurs on multiple specialization -> BeanA -> @Specialized BeanB
> ->
> >@Specialized BeanC.
> >Can i check in and create a issue for it?
> >
> >It would be great if anyone of you could check it.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >2013/11/28 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>
> >
> >> hi thomas,
> >>
> >> i did a quick-check and don't see the same effect.
> >> it would be great, if you provide a small demo which illustrates the
> issue.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/11/28 Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> > Guys, i really need your help!
> >> > It was introduced in one of the ~300 commits for #344
> >> > The most revisions event don't compile so i can't find the breaking
> >> commit!
> >> >
> >> > How is it possible that my Bean does not have a @Named in the source
> code
> >> > but it's really there in the debugger?
> >> > Can ASM manipulate this without inheritance? I never looked deeper in
> >> that
> >> > byte code generation/manipulation stuff.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2013/11/26 Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > i just upgraded to 1.2.1 and i get this exception.
> >> > > My @Specialized class does not have a @Named annotation but somehow
> >> it's
> >> > > there in the debugger.
> >> > >
> >> > > Any idea?
> >> > >
> >> > > I must still use 1.1.5 :/
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > Thomas
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to