Hmm, I wouldn't argue that way. The spec _and_ the JavaDocs just say "Returns: all annotations of the program element, or an empty set if no annotations are present"
There is a hint in the spec which might underline your interpretation: "Any observer of this event is permitted to _wrap_ and/or replace the AnnotatedType". But that sentence doesn't rule out the simple modification. If they are all immutable, then we should express this explicitly in the CDI-1.1 spec! LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 3/18/11, Stuart Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Stuart Douglas <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [weld-dev] are AnnotatedType and Co immutable? > To: "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 9:35 AM > In weld the sets are immutable (or > defensive copies, can't remember). > > I don't think that just because the spec does not mention > immutability that you could expect to modify internal state > of the annotated type through the set. > > Stuart > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 18/03/2011, at 20:24, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > If I pat(@Observes ProcessAnnotatedType > annotatedType), is it allowed to simply modify the Sets? > > > > E.g. call > > annotatedType.getAnnotations().add(myOwnAnnotation) ? > > > > The spec imo doesn't mention that those Sets are > immutable, so it should work. It works in OWB at least, but > what about Weld and CanDI? > > > > txs and LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
