Adam,
I hate to say this, but I'd rather focus on moving @DependsOn to CDI
where name-based qualifiers would be unlikely to be used anyway.
Cheers,
Reza
On 9/9/2011 7:23 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Adam,
>
> What would be the use-case for the new element?
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
> Adam Bien wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> currently the @DependsOn annotation looks like:
>> @Target(value = {ElementType.TYPE})
>> @Retention(value = RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>> public @interface DependsOn {
>>
>> public String[] value();
>> }
>>
>>
>> I would like to extend it with a class element:
>>
>> @Target(value = {ElementType.TYPE})
>> @Retention(value = RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>> public @interface DependsOn {
>>
>> public String[] value();
>> *public Class[] classes() default void.class;*
>> }
>>
>> It should be possible to specify the dependencies as simple EJB-names
>> as well as referring directly to the classes,
>>
>> any thoughts?
>>
>> adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3886 - Release Date: 09/09/11
>
>