Reza,
Could you file a CDI issue for this so we can track and discuss on the CDI EG?
On 12 Sep 2011, at 11:19, reza_rahman_at_lycos.com wrote:
> Pete,
>
> There isn't a better way that we have seen. It's definitely ugly, but it might be the only way to do it.
>
> Cheers,
> Reza
>
>
> Sep 12, 2011 11:17:03 AM, jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net wrote:
> The issue with @DependsOn for CDI is that specifying a CDI dependency using an annotation is extremely ugly. Say I have a CDI bean:
>
> @Colored @Red
> class Parrot {
>
> }
>
> If I wanted to depend on that using @DependsOn:
>
> @DependsOn(type=Parrot.class, qualifiers={Colored.class, Red.class})
>
> it's pretty nasty. We're not going to win anyone to Java EE with this.
>
> However it get's worse.
>
> @British @Gender(MALE)
> class Person {
>
> }
>
> @DependsOn(type=Person.class, qualifiers={_at_DependentQualifier(British.class), @DependentQualifier(value=Gender.class, attributes={_at_DependentQualifierAttribute(name="value", value="MALE")}))
>
> This is now basically useless, and I've yet to hear anyone say that this is a good approach.
>
> I know that some people have proposed requiring this only works with @Named e.g.
>
> @British @Gender(MALE)
> @Named("britishMalePerson")
> class Person {
>
> }
>
> @DependsOn("britishMalePerson")
>
> However this cannot be included in the CDI spec as it is a complete deviation from the guiding principles of CDI.
>
> I've yet to see a better approach - any ideas? :-D
>
> Pete
>
> On 12 Sep 2011, at 04:13, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
> > 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 | Twitter | Blog | LinkedIn | Paris JUG
>