Quick look into the spec http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/2.0/cdi-spec.html#name_resolution
@Named @Typed() seems to be valid and the bean should be found by EL. ________________________________ Von: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Montag, 11. September 2017 09:31:38 An: openwebbeans-dev Betreff: Re: Odd behavior in InjectionPointProducer Not sure it is 100% related but looks like a bean without types so not even sure @Named should be "matchable" since you dont match types at all (we often used @Typed = @Vetoed in CDI 1.0) Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2017-09-11 9:29 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>: > Btw, what I've seen quite a few times is the following: > > @Named > @Typed() > public class MyBla extends SomeComplicatedThing implements AFewInterfaces { > ... > } > > Means the @Typed got purely used to not have it picked up by type but only > via EL. > And in that case the proxy in Weld is most likely not working? > Is this a valid use case? > > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 11.09.2017 um 09:23 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > >: > > > > Surely the one to test: > > https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi-tck/blob/master/impl/src/ > main/java/org/jboss/cdi/tck/tests/lookup/injectionpoint/dynamic/ > DynamicInjectionPointTest.java > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > > 2017-09-11 9:20 GMT+02:00 Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de>: > > > >> I'm with Mark here, > >> > >> InjectionPoint#getType() should return a ParameterizedType Instance<Foo> > >> > >> So in the code below we simply should return parameterizedType I think. > >> > >> Would that pass the TCK? If yes, we definitely should file a TCK issue, > >> there seems to be a test missing. > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Arne > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> Von: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> > >> Gesendet: Montag, 11. September 2017 09:04:41 > >> An: openwebbeans-dev > >> Betreff: Re: Odd behavior in InjectionPointProducer > >> > >> Hmm, if you have a class > >> > >> public class Bla { > >> private @Inject Instance<Foo> myInstance; > >> } > >> > >> then I'd asssume that the InjectionPoint.getType for myInstance would be > >> Instance<Foo> and not Foo alone. > >> > >>> The problem is that Bean.getBeanClass() can never be null, by > definition, > >>> but also should not be used for type safe resolution (we actually had a > >>> discussion about this on the EG list as I had the opposite belief). > >> > >> Yes, there was a discussion which never got finished... > >> > >> Weld guys assume that they can infere the proxy type of a bean just by > >> getTypes(). > >> I don't believe that. Especially if @Typed is involved or if the real > >> AnnotatedType got modified then it is definitely not possible. > >> At least it's pretty expensive to detect. Would get my head around it > >> again tbh. > >> > >> In OWB we introduced an own method getReturnType() in OwbBean. > >> This get's evaluated and cached based on a few criteria. > >> Most of the time it simply uses the getBeanClass() type. > >> > >> I'll have to dig deeper into your sample to understand what you wanted > to > >> do with it. > >> > >> Could you probably put your use case in an OWB unit test and ship it as > >> patch? > >> > >> The only thing you have to do is to extend AbstractUnit test and then > use: > >> startcontainer(ClassX.class, ClassY.class, ...); > >> > >> > >> txs and LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >>> Am 10.09.2017 um 22:54 schrieb John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm running some tests locally using OWB and Instance objects. I > noticed > >>> that when the injection point is Instance<Foo> and I attempt to get an > >>> injectable reference to the InjectionPoint, I get a very odd value for > >>> InjectionPoint.getType(). As far as I understand it, this value should > >> be > >>> the type being injected into, e.g. Foo in my case. What I actually get > >>> back is the value of Bean.getBeanClass(). That makes very little > sense. > >>> As best as I can tell, the following code snippet is the cause: > >>> > >>> if (ParameterizedType.class.isInstance(type)) > >>> { > >>> ParameterizedType parameterizedType = > >>> ParameterizedType.class.cast(type); > >>> if (parameterizedType.getRawType() == Instance.class) > >>> { > >>> Bean<InjectionPoint> bean = > >>> creationalContextImpl.getBean(); > >>> return new InjectionPointDelegate( > >>> injectionPoint, > >>> bean.getBeanClass() != null ? > >>> bean.getBeanClass() : parameterizedType.getActualTypeArguments()[0]); > >>> } > >>> } > >>> > >>> The problem is that Bean.getBeanClass() can never be null, by > definition, > >>> but also should not be used for type safe resolution (we actually had a > >>> discussion about this on the EG list as I had the opposite belief). > But > >> I > >>> do believe that the else value is in fact what should always be used, I > >>> always should be getting the expected parameterized value. > >>> > >>> If you guys agree, I can submit a patch to fix this. > >>> > >>> John > >> > >> > >> . > >> > >
