that's the only one in EE "IoC" part AFAIK and not sure having a Alternative.Priority with the same constant but reversed would help more. +0 for this one ;).
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2016-06-15 15:19 GMT+02:00 Lars-Fredrik Smedberg <[email protected]>: > Hi > > Thanks for the answer... will probably do the same (define my own priority > constants...)... maybe they should extends the examples a bit and not > include references to Interceptors.Priority for alternatives? > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> got the same when working on TCK, some spec redefine priorities in their >> own "constant class" like JAX-RS. As a dev I also did it quite a few with >> my own ordering (using interceptor as reference but using my own semantic). >> This is still an option for you. >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber >> <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory >> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> >> >> 2016-06-15 15:00 GMT+02:00 Lars-Fredrik Smedberg <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Was not sure what mailing list to send this to but I guess some of you >>> could help me out. >>> >>> We are moving to JEE 7 and we are annotating our interceptors with >>> @Priority(...) to not have to include them in all beans.xml in all archives >>> where they should be used. >>> The value for the @Priority annotation are based upon the constants >>> defined in Interceptor.Priority... which JavaDoc says "Interceptors with >>> smaller priority values are called first."... so far so good... >>> >>> Then I also want to be able to place alternatives in separate >>> modules/jars that we will use in some test environments. This also works >>> good using @Alternative and @Priority... I understand >>> that the alternative is activated by using the @Priority annotation. In >>> section 5.2.2 of the CDI 1.2 spec (e.g. >>> http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec-1.2.pdf) I read the >>> following: >>> >>> "...all the beans left are alternatives with a priority, or producer >>> methods or fields of beans that >>> are alternatives with a priority, then the container will determine the >>> highest priority value, and >>> eliminate all beans, except for alternatives with the highest >>> priority..." >>> >>> I have tested this and I'm fine with that the higher priority >>> alternative is choosen. However in same spec in section 4.3 they have the >>> following example: >>> >>> "@Alternative @Priority(APPLICATION+100) >>> public class MockAsynchronousService extends AsynchronousService {" >>> >>> Similar example can be found at e.g.: >>> https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/tutorial/cdi-adv002.htm >>> >>> To me its confusing to use a priority value based on >>> Interceptors.Priority since the semantics of the Priority value is the >>> opposite for interceptors and alternatives? >>> >>> Does the examples for alternatives only confuse me or did I miss >>> someting? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Lars-Fredrik Smedberg >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >
