section 5.2.3 makes the following statements (TO,FROM capitialization is added):
A parameterized bean type is considered assignable TO a parameterized required type if they have
identical raw type and for each parameter:
...
the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type parameter is a type variable and the
actual type is assignable TO the upper bound, if any, of the type variable, ...
Not to get into splitting hairs, but shouldn't the second part read:
the required type parameter is an actual type, the bean type parameter is a type variable and the
actual type is assignable FROM the upper bound, if any, of the type variable, ...
TO and FROM can be ambigous here, but since in the first sentence the bean type is considered
assignable TO a parameterized required type
, then in the second part it should read the actual
type is assignable FROM the uppper bound, if any, of the type variable, ...
so as not to confuse
which direction the assignment needs to be enforced.
there are a couple more places in this section that would need to have the same change.
this would remove any confunsion around the idea that the required type needs to be identical
to, or a super class of, the bean type.
.
