Ladislav Thon
Ladislav Thon
Sounds like a duplicate of #1510 to me.
I have noticed some of these inaccuracies myself (type parameter vs type argument is the most obvious one), but haven't been brave enough to do something about it :-) In...
I probably wasn't entirely clear, so let me rephrase. I'm suggesting to fix one thing at a time, but that one thing that is being fixed or improved should ideally...
Also, for this particular issue, here's a proposal: https://github.com/Ladicek/cdi-spec/commit/7ca846c8800733414a02048be68db477392b508e (I couldn't resist and improved the wording for class types and array types too.) To be fair, I don't really understand...
I actually think the word "match" is defined fairly well in the CDI specification, specifically in the paragraph that starts with "The bean has a bean type that matches the...
Ah and one more thing I wanted to say: it is unfortunate that the Weld codebase uses the term "match" on so many places, but that shouldn't be used to...
> Only Dependent beans are allowed to have parameterized types. That is not exactly true (`@ApplicationScoped class MyBean implements List { ... }` would be valid and would have a...
> There was a request to have that removed previously, and that has been done. AFAIK only in the CDI specification, not in the TCK. We need to purge this...
Submitted #527 to remove the JBoss tagline.
I actually don't think it would be _simple_ to add an SPI for configuring the container like this (it certainly won't be as simple as `Beans` or `Contexts`; I guess...