Well, the IP resolving is always done against getTypes().
But I think this is uninamously understood the same in all impls, isn't?
The only discussion I remembered was around the getTypes() vs getBeanClass()
for proxing. Thus my answers.
Again: test would be cool, then we could help much faster.
txs and LieGrue,
strub
> Am 11.09.2017 um 12:36 schrieb John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>:
>
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
