So remember. The question here is about injection point, not the bean
type. Some of the problems described are deployment problems. E.g. you
try to inject using a type that's forbidden because of @Typed, then that
should result in UnsatisfiedDependencies, at deployment time.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:07 AM Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de>
wrote:
> Yes, that's interesting, you could get a proxy that directly extends
> Object. So you could invoke no method on that bean (except toString(),
> equals(...), hashCode(), ...)
>
>
> Does not seem to be usefull at all
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID>
> Gesendet: Montag, 11. September 2017 11:13:20
> An: openwebbeans-dev
> Betreff: Re: Odd behavior in InjectionPointProducer
>
> yes I'm also really sure it must get resolved as per the spec.
> The question is just which proxy you get once there is also a normal scope
> on the class
>
>
> @Named
> @Typed
> @ApplicationScoped
> public class MyBla extends SomeComplicatedThing implements AFewInterfaces {
> ...
> }
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 11.09.2017 um 09:41 schrieb Arne Limburg <
> arne.limb...@openknowledge.de>:
> >
> > 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
