Uploaded image for project: 'CDI Specification Issues'
  1. CDI Specification Issues
  2. CDI-282

Vetoing types - clarify consequences

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • Clarification
    • Resolution: Done
    • Critical
    • 1.1.PFD
    • None
    • None
    • None

    Description

      The spec currently says @Vetoed type is prevented from being considered by CDI and ProcessAnnotatedType.veto() forces the container to ignore the type. This is quite obvious for classes and interfaces. However not so clear when vetoing annotations (e.g. qualifier). I think ignoring means not being considered as qualifier (thus affects resolution). Other (rather theoretical) example is vetoing non-contextual instances - should it prevent performing dependency injection?

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          relates to

          Clarification - A clarification needed to a specification based on community feedback CDI-320 Clarify whether ProcessAnnotatedType should be fired for annotations

          • Major - To be worked after higher priority work items are addressed. When the severity is high and the effort to change it is low to moderate, this term is chosen. Issues in this category likely have an existing workaround but implementation or execution may be non-trivial.
          • Closed

          Activity

            People

              pmuiratbleepbleep Pete Muir (Inactive)
              mkouba@redhat.com Martin Kouba
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              4 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: