@ComponentScan should get processed without @Configuration as well [SPR-11769]

[spring-projects-issues]

Adam Berlin opened SPR-11769 and commented

Currently, If I need to use @ComponentScan I also need to use @Configuration. I should not need to add both.

---

Issue Links:

• Consider @Import classes as lite @Configuration [SPR-10533] #15163 Consider @Import classes as lite @Configuration
• Revisit @Bean introspection between @Configuration classes and 'lite' beans [SPR-17206] #21739 Revisit @Bean introspection between @Configuration classes and 'lite' beans

Referenced from: commits b4d447f

0 votes, 5 watchers

[spring-projects-issues]

Stéphane Nicoll commented

I am not sure what you are referring to. Are you saying that if you include @ComponontScan it does not work unless you add @Configuration?

[spring-projects-issues]

Phil Webb commented

I think Adam means that you can't use @ComponentScan unless it's on a @Configuration class so the additional @Configuration annotation is somewhat unnecessary. We could add a @Configuration meta-annotation annotation to @ComponentScan so you can do this:

@ComponentScan
// @Configuration (no longer required)
public ....

[spring-projects-issues]

Phil Webb commented

I'm not totally sold on the idea, although you could argue that @Configuration is superfluous I think it does help with readability.

[spring-projects-issues]

Juergen Hoeller commented

This is somewhat along the lines of #15163 and could be addressed the same way: through extending the 'lite' candidate check in ConfigurationClassutils.isLiteConfigurationCandidate, just making the class-level annotations work but not implying @Configuration semantics.

Since we're doing this for @Import already (as per #15163), we should consider it for @ImportResource and @ComponentScan as well.

Juergen

[spring-projects-issues]

Adam Berlin commented

@Phil thanks for the clarification. That's exactly what I meant.