ould 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
> >>
> >> _____
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()
&g
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 &l
eem 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 a
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:05 AM Mark Struberg
wrote:
> Hmm, if you have a class
>
> public class Bla {
> private @Inject Instance myInstance;
> }
>
> then I'd asssume that the InjectionPoint.getType for myInstance would be
> Instance and not Foo alone.
>
>
Agreed,
sendet: 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
@Application
: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
@rm
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
&g
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
sue,
> 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
>
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 myInstance;
}
then I'd a
Hmm, if you have a class
public class Bla {
private @Inject Instance myInstance;
}
then I'd asssume that the InjectionPoint.getType for myInstance would be
Instance and not Foo alone.
> The problem is that Bean.getBeanClass() can never be null, by definition,
> but also should not be used
Hmm
Does it passes TCK with your patch? Also wonder if we shouldnt get the impl
in some cases vs the signature. If tck are green im ok with it.
Le 10 sept. 2017 22:54, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I'm running some tests locally using OWB and Instance objects. I
13 matches
Mail list logo