Title: Message Title
|
|
I think we have to look at 2 different pieces. The sentence quoted above regarding Disposer-Producer matching requires that the exact same *return type*. Not Type Closures, it _explicitly_ says "return type". This rule is violated by the example
The other point which is imo violated is that the type closure must only be a sub section of the original types. Let's look at the following sample: {code:java} @ApplicationScoped public class Dog extends Mammal (extends Animal) {..} {code}
Now what if you change the Type Closure to 'Poodle'? This will simply blow up.
I also don't see the practical use of the hack in this test. If you want to have automatic support for @Inject Tomato and @Inject Carrot then you can do this via collecting the info in ProcessInjectionPoint<? extends Vegetables> and register a custom Bean for each type. |
|
|
|
|
|
_______________________________________________
weld-issues mailing list
weld-issues@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues