Gurkan, I obviously DO call a method of a bean instance. So this scenario is
perfectly valid from the spec perspective.
LieGrue,
strub
--- Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com schrieb am Di, 11.5.2010:
Von: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com
Betreff: Re: Need to switch to subclassing?
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{
Call on proxy instance not actual bean instance.
From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 9:07:20 AM
Subject: Re: Need to switch to subclassing?
Gurkan, I obviously DO call a method of a bean instance. So
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
http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Possible-OPENEJB-Bug-with-Interceptors-td982087.html
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
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,
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
Here's something that will solve your problem, use AspectJ.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
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
---
I don't have Gurkan's experience in the spec, but this seems to be what
section 7.2 is all about. When do you treat a method call as a business
method invocation, and how does that affect things like Decorators and
Interceptor invocation.
The only wording that hints this shouldn't work when
Yes, thanks Joe. For @Dependent it seems that it's pretty much clear. The
question is if we should use the same mechanism for @NormalScoped beans also.
But Gurkans argument with the EJB Interceptor spec is a strong indicator that
it is not mandatory.
LieGrue,
strub
--- Joseph Bergmark
10 matches
Mail list logo
