@Mark When I was reading the source code and posted the question I was only reflecting upon the documentation of BeanManager and got curious of the actual reason of the extra safety net :)... I understand that many things are done to cover for old implementations/containers...
Regards LF On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > We would probably need to dig deep into old containers as well to check > whether this has some impact on them. > The null-check doesn’t hurt imo. Probably we should just add a short > explanation. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 28.03.2015 um 13:23 schrieb [email protected]: > > > > While this is up for discussion, the cdi api here is pretty flawed? Not > a big issue but always bothered me... > > > > Skickat från min iPhone > > > >> 28 mar 2015 kl. 10:53 skrev Thomas Andraschko < > [email protected]>: > >> > >> likely yes, but as i said: if we change it, we have to test it on every > >> version/cdi container. > >> > >> 2015-03-26 18:39 GMT+01:00 Lars-Fredrik Smedberg <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> @Thomas and also remove the isActive call I guess? > >>> On Mar 26, 2015 5:59 PM, "Thomas Andraschko" < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> i just added the null check to get sure. > >>>> Removing the check + adding a unit test for it would be a better way. > >>>> > > -- Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards Lars-Fredrik Smedberg STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
