Absolutely! Last time we posted some CDI PMRs to IBM it took about 6 monts from we got the iFix until it eventually ended up in 8.5.5.2 and 8.5.5.3 :)...
Regards LF On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Txs and please let us know once this is solved ;) > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Tuesday, 11 November 2014, 20:29, Lars-Fredrik Smedberg < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >@Mark @Romain > > > > > >Tried it out (atleast the case with CDI Interceptor on EJB Timer) and it > worked nicely in TomEE but not in WAS. PMR is filed already. Thanks for > your help guys :) > > > > > >Regards > >LF > > > > > >On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Lars-Fredrik Smedberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >Hi Mark and Romain > >> > >> > >>Yes will file a PMR. When debugging an EJB interceptor with > @AroundInvoke I saw that there where an OWB EJB Interceptor outermost that > when I looked at the source is supposed to run all decorators and then all > interceptors. > >> > >> > >>What section of the spec (EJB 3.1?, CDI 1.0?, Interceptor 1.1?) should I > refer to.... maybe I have missed what section its described in? Its not > clear to me if they write in the spec "Interceptor" does that include EJB > and CDI Interceptor or only EJB? > >> > >> > >>Regards > >>LF > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>+1 > >>> > >>>If this is about MDBs or @Scheduled methods then it has not much to do > with CDI but rather with the EJB container. > >>> > >>>I also think it should work as per the spec. You might need to file a > PMR for this. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>LieGrue, > >>>strub > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>On Sunday, 9 November 2014, 6:50, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Ok > >>>>This is the responsability of the ejb container, not cdi. IIRC it > should work as well. > >>>> > >>>>Le 9 nov. 2014 00:41, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >>>> > >>>>Hi Mark > >>>>>We have the beans.xml in place, will check the private and exception > on monday when Im back to office. > >>>>>Regards > >>>>>Lars-Fredrik > >>>>>On Nov 8, 2014 11:13 PM, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Lars-Fredrik! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> @AroundInvoke is indeed supported in CDI-1.0 and thus also in WAS. > I'm using it heavily at some customers . Do you have a beans.xml in > WEB-INF? WAS needs this (not required by the spec, but anyway). > >>>>>> Probably WAS has a problem with private around-invoke methods. You > might also check if your method declares 'throws Exception'. This is > required by the spec ans WAS is pretty picky about it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LieGrue, > >>>>>> strub > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Saturday, 8 November 2014, 17:42, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >Just a doubt: you asked about around invoke but spoke about > timeout. Timeout should be supported IIRC but we did it after several > releases ie not 1.0. > >>>>>> >Le 8 nov. 2014 15:02, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <[email protected]> > a écrit : > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >Thanks Romain.... then I will submit a bugreport.... > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >>/Fredrik > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >>On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >>Iirc aroundinvoke was supported since the beginning > >>>>>> >>>Le 8 nov. 2014 14:05, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> @Romain > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>I know WAS uses OWB and, as you say, some obsolete version. > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>I was just curios in what CDI and OWB version the support was > added. If I try to bug report something that is not in Java EE 6 I will get > the cold hand I guess :) > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>It is in tomee and by spec. No idea in WAS which has obsolete > versions > >>>>>> >>>>>Le 8 nov. 2014 13:47, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>Hi! > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>As I can see JSR318 contains two specifications, EJB 3.1 > Specification and Interceptors 1.1 (and later on Interceptors 1.2 MR) > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>EJB 3.1 as well as Interceptors 1.1 are included in Java EE6. > >>>>>> >>>>>>Interceptors 1.2 is included in Javav EE7. > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>When I look in Inteceptors Specification 1.1 I find no > references to a specific CDI version or to CDI at all. > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>When I look in Interceptors Specification 1.2 I see the > following: > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>1.2 Relationship to Other Specifications > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>"...and the CDI specification requires support for the > chapters 2,3 and 5 (excluding 5.5)." > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>CDI specification here points to "JSR346 - Context and > Dependency Injection for the Java EE Platform 1.1 (CDI specification)" > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>2.7 Timeout Method Inteceptors > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>"Interceptor methods that interpose on timeout methods are > denoted by the AroundTimeout annotation." > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>"Around-timeout methods can have public, private, protected > or package level access. An around-timeout method must not be declared as > abstract, final or static." > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>Question: > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>1) From the Interceptors 1.2 I understand that @AroundInvoke > is okay to use with a CDI interceptor using CDI 1.1, correct? > >>>>>> >>>>>>2) What about CDI 1.0 (JSR 299) and Interceptors 1.1, is > @AroundInvoke also okay with CDI 1.0? I find no information on that? > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>The reason I ask is that I do not get it to work with > WebSphere 8.5.5 that uses OWB (with a version that atleast should support > CDI 1.0). > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards > >>>>>> >>>>>>Lars-Fredrik > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>-- > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: > >>>>>> >>>>>>The information contained in this electronic message and any > >>>>>> >>>>>>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive > use of the > >>>>>> >>>>>>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged > information. If > >>>>>> >>>>>>you are not the intended recipient, please notify > Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > >>>>>> >>>>>>immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of > this > >>>>>> >>>>>>message and any attachments. > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>-- > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: > >>>>>> >>>>The information contained in this electronic message and any > >>>>>> >>>>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use > of the > >>>>>> >>>>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged > information. If > >>>>>> >>>>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik > Smedberg > >>>>>> >>>>immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of > this > >>>>>> >>>>message and any attachments. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >>-- > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: > >>>>>> >>The information contained in this electronic message and any > >>>>>> >>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of > the > >>>>>> >>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged > information. If > >>>>>> >>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik > Smedberg > >>>>>> >>immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of this > >>>>>> >>message and any attachments. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >> > >>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards > >> > >>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > >> > >>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: > >>The information contained in this electronic message and any > >>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the > >>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If > >>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > >>immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of this > >>message and any attachments. > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards > > > >Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > > > >STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: > >The information contained in this electronic message and any > >attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the > >address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If > >you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg > >immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of this > >message and any attachments. > > > > > -- Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards Lars-Fredrik Smedberg STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
