Wouldn't it also make sense to have @DependsOn on some CDI beans
(@ApplicationScoped for example) ?
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 06:25, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
Blog <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> |
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal>| Paris
JUG <http://www.parisjug.org>