Oki let me rephrase: I'd like to know if the spec (or Gavin) intends to define
this behaviour or if it is 'intentionally left undefined'.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Tue, 5/11/10, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Need to switch to subclassing?
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 6:47 AM
> >>>>Such things should
> work the same in Weld, CanDI, OWB and all other
> JSR-299 containers
> Mmmm, I am not the same. Java EE specifications do not
> explicitly define some behaviors. Containers could implement
> those areas with their own way but they are all required to
> pass the "Java EE TCK". Therefore, one behavior in one
> container may be differently functioned from other
> containers. This is mostly observed on container specific
> security managements.
>
> This is the main motivation behind the TCKs.
>
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 9:22:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Need to switch to subclassing?
>
> I could not find this explicitly stated in the EJB spec
> neither - so maybe OpenEJB needs a fix too? :D
>
> Nah, just like to know what the 299 spec intends. Such
> things should work the same in Weld, CanDI, OWB and all
> other JSR-299 containers. I bet there are only very few
> developers (users!) out there which would find a bug caused
> by such a behaviour.
>
> So my main concern is not the behaviour itself, but that
> it's currently not really well defined how it should
> behave.
>
> I'll post this also on the weld list to get a feeling what
> they expect it to do.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Tue, 5/11/10, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: Need to switch to subclassing?
> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> > Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 6:11 AM
> > This will also not work on EJB
> > containers. For example, in EJB Hello
> >
> > @Interceptors(MyInterceptor.class)
> > public Hello implemenet IHello{
> >
> > public void method1(){
> >
> method2();
> > }
> >
> > public void method2(){
> >
> .......
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @Local
> > public interface IHello{
> > public void method1();
> > public void method2();
> > }
> >
> > main(){
> > IHello proxy = getting from
> intitial context
> > proxy.method1();
> > }
> >
> >
> > Calling method2() from method1() does not trigger
> > interception. Interceptor is called ones when client
> calls
> > method1() on bean proxy. You could try it on OpenEJB
> for
> > example
> >
> > Thanks;
> >
> > Gurkan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> > Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 8:30:15 AM
> > Subject: Need to switch to subclassing?
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > There is a subtle difference between implementing
> > interceptors via proxy or via subclasses.
> >
> > I have the following service which imports data from
> a
> > legacy system into my db. Since commits are very
> performance
> > intense, they should get imported in packages of 100.
> So
> > I'll get 100 'Employees' from my legacy system and
> then call
> > a @Transactional method to store them in my own
> database.
> >
> > public void ImportService() {
> > public void importEmployee() {
> > List<LegacyEmployee>
> les;
> > while ((les =
> > getNext100EmployeesFromLegacy()) != nul) {
> >
> importLegacyEmployees(le);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > �...@transactional
> > protected
> > importLegacyEmployees(List<LegacyEmployee> les)
> {
> > for (LegacyEmployee le: les)
> {
> >
> employeeService.store(le);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > This would actually _not_ when using proxies for the
> > interceptor handling, because calling a method on an
> own
> > class doesn't invoke the proxyhandler.
> >
> > So is this expected to work?
> >
> > Sure, I could easily move the importLegacyEmployees()
> to an
> > own service, but that would infringe classic OOP
> heavily
> > imo.
> >
> > Gurkan, what does the spec say here, I did find
> nothing.
> > The old spec explicitly mentioned that we need to use
> > subclassing, but I cannot find this anymore.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
>
>
