I don't think so. On 1 Nov 2010, at 17:24, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Pete Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Bill, >> >> In your example, the raw types of both the producer and consumer are both >> identical, so, like you say, we need to consider the type parameters. >> >> * the type of the producer is resolved to have a single type parameter, >> which is a type variable with upper bound MediumClass. >> * the required type for s1 has a single type parameter, which is an actual >> type SmallClass >> * the required type b1 has a single type parameter, which is an actual type >> BigClass >> * BigClass is assignable to MediumClass >> * SmallClass is NOT assignable to MediumClass >> >> Therefore, like you say, for s1: >> >> * The REQUIRED type parameter is an ACTUAL TYPE (yes, it's SmallClass) >> * the BEAN type parameter is a TYPE VARIABLE (yes, it has upper bound >> MediumClass) >> * and the ACTUAL TYPE is ASSIGNABLE TO the upper bound, if any, of the TYPE >> VARIABLE (no, SmallClass is not assignable to MediumClass) >> >> and for b1: >> >> * The REQUIRED type parameter is an ACTUAL TYPE (yes, it's BigClass) >> * the BEAN type parameter is a TYPE VARIABLE (yes, it has upper bound >> MediumClass) >> * and the ACTUAL TYPE is ASSIGNABLE TO the upper bound, if any, of the TYPE >> VARIABLE (yes, BigClass is assignable to MediumClass) >> >> And yes, looking at this, it does seem the wrong way around. >> >> Gavin, your thoughts? >> > > Did this thread/issue go anywhere off-line? > > -- > Eric Covener > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > weld-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev _______________________________________________ weld-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
