Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Revert incorrect change in ambiguity resolution
We previously [1] changed the ambiguity resolution wording from > The container eliminates all eligible beans that are not alternatives, > except for producer methods and fields of beans that are alternatives. to > The container eliminates all eligible beans that are not alternatives > selected for the application, except for producer methods and fields > of beans that are alternatives. At that time, we did _not_ add a rule to the CDI Full section that would cover alternatives selected for the bean archive. Note that for a bean to be _eligible_, it must be _available for injection_, and an alternative is available for injection only if it is selected (for application in CDI Lite; for application or for bean archive in CDI Full). Alternative beans that are not selected are hence not even considered during ambiguity resolution, so the ambiguity resolution description does not need to mention them at all. This is why the previous description is correct. Now, only eliminating beans that are not alternatives selected for application, as the new text says, would mean that in CDI Full, beans that are alternatives selected for bean archive would also be eliminated. That would be wrong. Therefore, this change is incorrect. Of course, no implementation actually made that change in behavior, and the TCK wasn't adjusted either. There are 2 ways to fix this: revert to previous wording, or add extra wording to the CDI Full section: > The container eliminates all eligible beans that are not alternatives > selected for the bean archive or selected for the application, except > for producer methods and fields of beans that are alternatives. This would be similar how ambiguous name resolution is specified. This commit simply reverts to the previous wording, because that's easier, even though it leads to slight inconsistency between ambiguous dependency resolution and ambiguous name resolution. That inconsistency exists since CDI 1.1, so is not an issue. [1] 1840939
- Loading branch information