Hmm, arq. test enricher has some ancient dependencies. In fact, they rely on
CDI 1.0 (and therefore Weld 1.x). Looking closely at the code, it looks like
Weld dependency is only needed for tests, for actual impl, CDI will do.
And the test can be re-written to avoid using Weld internal completely
seem to be having some issues subscribing to this list..testing
___
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
Matej,
Since @Inject can only work with a qualifier annotation not anything other
annotations, do you think adding a validation criteria to assert that is
acceptable?
For IDE validation, it is quite limited because a lot of work needs to be
done via runtime to figure out whether the 2nd
Dne 15. 04. 20 v 12:42 Emily Jiang napsal(a):
> Matej,
>
> Since @Inject can only work with a qualifier annotation not anything
> other annotations,
That's not correct. You can add any annotation to an injection point.
I've seen it several times where a framework inspected the
InjectionPoint
Hello,
what you are describing looks like a user error. Basically, for a given
scenario it can be uncertain who's handling injection and I can imagine some
cases where there can be race between then two frameworks.
Side note - Validator doesn't have EJB dependency and we don't want to add it
