Dirk, >From my understanding of the specs and also from talking with Pete Muir and Mark Struberg because this is an Interceptor it should work correctly. If it is not, chances are this is a bug in the container and should be reported.
We'd love to have some feedback and some contributions in this area, I just went through the test code and it doesn't look like we have a test with your scenario Dirk. Would you be able to contribute one for us, please? On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Pete Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > IMO it should apply to superclasses as well. > > On 16 Oct 2012, at 14:02, Dirk Weil wrote: > > > Hi everybody, > > > > > > > > I started a discussion at > https://community.jboss.org/message/764873#764873 > > about the seam transaction interceptor, which is not handling derived > > methods (see original post further down). Jason Porter pointed me to this > > mail list, stating that DeltaSpikes Transactional Interceptor behaves in > the > > same way. What are the reasons for this? Isn't it normally the case that > a > > user wants transactional behavior regardless of where the method is > defined > > (base class or derived class)? > > > > Additionally I regard it dangerous if an interceptor does not behave > like an > > ordinal interceptor (I know: Transactional intercepts every call, but it > > does different things depending on the class defining the method > > intercepted). > > > > > > > > Please give me some hint, why the implementation of Transactional was > done > > in that way. > > > > > > > > Thank you very much and best regards > > > > Dirk Weil > > > > -- Jason Porter http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/lightguardjp Software Engineer Open Source Advocate PGP key id: 926CCFF5 PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
