I agree that this should be vetted out at the platform level as to avoid
further duplication of concepts.
On 12/19/2011 11:29 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2011, at 07:41, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>
>> I think we need to sort this all out very slowly...
>>
>> Pete Muir wrote:
>>> Possibly I misunderstood you. I meant we would need to specify that
>>> the annotations to which we add the ANNOTATION_TYPE target would need
>>> to be specified as usable as meta-annotations,
>> Isn't an annotation with an ANNOTATION_TYPE target type, a meta-annotation by default? In David's example @Metatype seems to be a marker for the derived annotations (for easier processing?)
> It is, but I think the spec needs to say what annotations can be used like this, and also require implementations to process this.
>
>>> it's not enough to just
>>> add the target to them... We would need to specify whether they can be
>>> applied recursively or not etc.
>>>
>> Do you mean their derived annotations (like @Yearly in David's example)?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Another question: would we expect CDI to be responsible for processing those derived (@Metatype ?) annotations? Or would all other containers need to process them even if CDI is not enabled?
> I guess it depends where they end up. We could tack this onto CDI, but I would prefer it in the platform or a new spec I think.
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4688 - Release Date: 12/18/11
>
>
>