Title: Message Title
|
|
[~mkouba] Let's get back to your sample. I don't quite get it.
You said one might be able to add another Bean implementing Baz and that would work? I cannot see how this should work, please help me to understand what you meant.
{code:java} @ApplicationScoped public class OtherFoo implements Baz { ..} {code}
As far as I understand you would then get an AmbiguousResolutionException. The bean resolving algorithm doesn't care whether a Bean is proxyable or not. So you would end up with Bean<Foo> and Bean<OtherFoo> for the InjectionPoint @Inject Baz baz; Or does Weld behave different in that case?
Regarding my reference to Instance<T> and Provider<T>: Neither the atinject nor the CDI specification define that those methods return a 'Contextual Reference'. The CDI spec says in the Instance section: { qoute quote } The Instance interface provides a method for obtaining instances of beans.. { qoute quote }
Thus my question what Weld does. According to your interpretation a CDI container must not blow up with an UnproxyableResolutionExceptionthen because it's not specified.
Again: I strongly believe that both Weld and OWB operate well within the intention and wording of the spec.
What about using an Injected Arquillian deployer and check whether the UnproxyableResolutionException *either* gets thrown during bootstrap _or_ during the actual use of this bean? |
|
|
|
|
|
_______________________________________________
weld-issues mailing list
weld-issues@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues