Yes, I also have the gut feeling that it should work. I read through the interceptors spec though and didn't find any explicit wording. We should redirect this question to the EJB EG which handles the interceptors spec, isn't?
I remember David saying that for _some_ kind of interceptors it does not work that way. But I don't remember exactly which one. LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jason Porter <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:05 PM > Subject: Re: @Transactional interceptor ignores derived methods > > 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 >
