wouldn't it be more relevant to replace it by interceptors? = allow abstract ejb if an interceptor intercepts them.
the ejb would have @AbstractAllowed and the interceptor @Handle or sthg like that *Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* 2013/9/21 David Blevins <[email protected]> > On Sep 21, 2013, at 4:40 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think we already have it through cdi and decorators but it doesnt hurt > to > > get it this way ;). > > Similar to decorators, yes. Just as the @Proxy+InvocationHandler concept > is similar to interceptors. > > Big difference in both from their decorator/interceptor equivalent is that > with those you'd still be required to have concrete bean class. Sort of a > downer if you never actually want it to be called. > > > Fun feature allowing partial impl btw! > > Exactly! And interestingly enough, since it's a subclass and the subclass > *is* the actual class instantiated, even "this" invocations to abstract > methods will go to the invoke(..) method. > > > -David > >
