anonymous wrote : I know that this has also been raise about Seam but would it
be possible to remove that annotation and use the value() of the @Component
annotation or add a "name" attribute to it instead? I found it would be more
meaningful this way. Or maybe the @Named attribute has other uses which
requires it to be separate?
There are many component type annotations (@Component, @Standard, and all the
user-defined component types). It doesn't make sense to re-declare the name
attribute each time we create a new component type.
And please compare:
@Component(name="foo")
| @Component @Name("foo")
The only difference is a single space.
anonymous wrote : In the example that you give in part 4 about how to use
injection in resolver method, wouldn't it be better to instantiate the
component through the Web Beans API instead of having the container inject 3
values and in the end only using one of them?
You can do that if you like. It will look like:
Component<Foo> comp = container.resolveByType(Foo.class);
| Foo foo = container.getContext(comp.getScope()).get(comp)
anonymous wrote : It probably is too soon to discuss this but are there any
plans to replace Seam's component model with Web Beans? I know that some
features/behaviour of the Seam component model might be missing from the Web
Beans specification but is the ultimate goal the one day use it in Seam?
The current Seam codebase will evolve into the Web Beans RI. Then
non-standardized features of Seam will be layered over the Web Beans standard.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4089381#4089381
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4089381
_______________________________________________
jboss-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
