No problem - I followed the CDI discussion :-). But if you change the @DependsOn annotation for CDI-needs you will break the existent EJB 3.1 contract.
Would you like to use @Named (Strings) or other qualifiers (classes)?
From EJB perspective having a class is more convenient.
What do you think?
adam
On 10.09.2011, at 06:25, Reza Rahman 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
>>
>>
>