tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bertrand Guay-Paquet <>
Subject Re: TomEE + CDI + Wicket = no suitable constructor for injection
Date Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:14:02 GMT

Thanks for jumping in! I think you are much better informed regarding 
this issue than I am.

Regarding the UnmanagedObject class, you are right. I meant "unmanaged" 
in the sense that wicket does not inject it automatically, but via a 
method call in the constructor. Since this test project could be 
referenced elsewhere, I'll add a comment to that effect.


On 07/01/2013 4:03 PM, Harald Wellmann wrote:
> wicket-cdi does not define beans, they define injection targets which 
> OpenWebBeans (IMHO incorrectly) treats as managed beans, hence the 
> confusing messages.
> I've started a new thread [1] on the OWB user list for this issue.
> I've tested Bertrand's sample without problems on GlassFish/Weld, and 
> the Weld implementation code for InjectionTargets looks a good deal 
> cleaner to me.
> Bertrand: By the way, the UnmanagedObject in your sample is in fact a 
> managed bean - not adding a @XXXScoped qualifier does not make it 
> unmanaged, it's a managed bean with @Dependant scope.
> [1]
> Best regards,
> Harald
> Am 07.01.2013 07:44, schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>> wicket-cdi defines beans with constructor params without @Inject on
>> the constructor so it is not a cdi bean for cdi
>> then not sure how they use it but the issue is in wicket-cdi
>> if it is a false cdi bean (manage by wicket) it should be annotated
>> Typed(), if not the constructor should be annotated @Inject

View raw message