Remove @Specializes and @Priority annotations from CDISmallRyeContext #2299
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
phillip-kruger
approved these changes
Sep 2, 2025
Member
|
Happy from my side, I just want @jmartisk to also review |
jmartisk
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Related to quarkusio/quarkus#49834 (comment)
From what I can see, these two annotations have no real effect; the parent class is not even a CDI bean (since you are using
annotateddiscovery mode and it bears no bean defining annotation).It should therefore be safe to remove them.
In Quarkus, the specialization annotation would have been just ignored up until the above linked PR.
In CDI Full (such as Weld in WFLY) it would be taken into consideration but again, the parent class isn't a bean so there is nothing to specialize.
The
@Priorityalso seems redundant as that's used for alternatives which is not the case of this class/bean either.The only other case I can think of would be some heavy extension-based modification in application servers that I am unaware of - so I am hoping the CI here would expose those :)