Hmm, I think we discussed this in the past. The problem is, that the spec does not clearly state whether all ProcessInjectionPoint-Events have to be fired before the first ProcessBeanAttributes-Event. Weld does so, we don¹t (we fire them bean by bean). I don¹t think, our way is wrong from the spec point of view. If it is, we should fix it. Otherwise I tend to say, that the extension is not portable.
Cheers, Arne Am 01.06.15 03:51 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >PS: alternative is to fix the lifecycle between ProcessBeanAttributes and >ProcessInjectionPoint > > >Romain Manni-Bucau >@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog ><http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github ><https://github.com/rmannibucau> | >LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber ><http://www.tomitribe.com> > >2015-06-01 3:42 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi guys, >> >> >>org.apache.webbeans.component.BeanAttributesImpl#BeanAttributesImpl(java. >>util.Set<java.lang.reflect.Type>, >> java.util.Set<java.lang.annotation.Annotation>, java.lang.Class<? >>extends >> java.lang.annotation.Annotation>, java.lang.String, boolean, >> java.util.Set<java.lang.Class<? extends >>java.lang.annotation.Annotation>>, >> boolean) copies types from bean attributes. It prevents any further >>changes >> and https://gist.github.com/antoinesd/3097661ca99fa61900fb becomes not >> portable (if set is filled before we copy it it works otherwise it is >> broken) >> >> do you think we should just take the input value without any >>modification? >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber >> <http://www.tomitribe.com> >>
