It works but it is handled by the ejb itself, not cdi Le 26 août 2014 21:53, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <itsme...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> @Romain > > I though that I could @Inject an EJB and apply CDI-interceptors to the EJB > or methods on it. > > Reading your answer it seems like I only can do that if the injceted EJB is > a scoped stateful EJB because in other cases no CDI-proxy is created.... > > Did I get that right or did I misunderstand you? > > Thanks > Lars-Fredrik > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > no only for scoped stateful. for singleton/stateless you get the ejb > > proxy directly > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > 2014-08-26 21:10 GMT+02:00 Lars-Fredrik Smedberg <itsme...@gmail.com>: > > > Sorry for that, ofcourse I meant @Stateful, that was what we discussed > in > > > the previous posts :) > > > > > > Thinking of the CDI proxy in front of the EJB proxy makes it easier to > > > understand what is going on under the hood. > > > > > > A follow up question: > > > > > > - Will a CDI proxy always be created in front of the EJB proxy if the > EJB > > > is injected using @Inject? Or is that also the case when using @EJB? I > > > guess even for dependent scoped CDI beans a proxy is used to be able to > > > trigger interceptors etc. > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > LF > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> replace @Stateless by @Stateful and it is that > > >> > > >> cdi scope is just a proxy in front of ejb proxy > > >> > > >> > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> > > >> > > >> 2014-08-26 17:54 GMT+02:00 Lars-Fredrik Smedberg <itsme...@gmail.com > >: > > >> > Thanks for the answer. > > >> > > > >> > So to summarize the scoping rules from CDI apply and the concurrency > > >> > management from EJB apply when combining @Stateless and any of the > > >> > @NormalScopes... > > >> > > > >> > Regards > > >> > Lars-Fredrik > > >> > On 26 Aug 2014 16:50, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Hi > > >> >> > > >> >> 2014-08-26 16:45 GMT+02:00 Lars-Fredrik Smedberg < > itsme...@gmail.com > > >: > > >> >> > Hi > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I have a few questions on EJB, CDI and Concurrency when I read > > >> >> > > http://tomee.apache.org/examples-trunk/access-timeout/README.html, > > I > > >> >> read > > >> >> > > > >> >> > - Concurrent access to a @Stateful bean is serialized by the > > >> container. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I also understand that I can annotate the EJBs with any of the > > >> CDI-scopes > > >> >> > (in my case I'm interested in @RequestScoped, @SessionScoped and > > >> >> > @ApplicationScoped). > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Questions: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > 1. If I annotate the @Stateful bean with @RequestScoped I assume > > that > > >> I > > >> >> get > > >> >> > a separate bean instance for each call? Correct? > > >> >> > > >> >> yes > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2. If I annotate the @Stateful bean with @SessionScoped I assume > > that > > >> I > > >> >> per > > >> >> > sesion get a separate bean instance that allows concurrent calls > > >> withing > > >> >> > that particular session without wait? Correct? > > >> >> > > >> >> you get one instance by session and calls are serialized if needed > to > > >> >> ensure thread safety > > >> >> > > >> >> > 3. If I annotate the @Stateful bean with @ApplicationScoped I > > assume > > >> >> that I > > >> >> > per application get one bean instance that allows concurrent > calls > > >> >> without > > >> >> > wait? Correct? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> same as before, thread safety is ensured > > >> >> > > >> >> > The reason I ask is that as far as I understand CDI does not have > > any > > >> >> > concurrency management but the EJB has. What will be the case > when > > >> doing > > >> >> as > > >> >> > above? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Please help me get some in-depth understanding on this. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> for @AppScoped => look @javax.ejb.Singleton and @Lock which is > surely > > >> >> better > > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks > > >> >> > 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 itsme...@gmail.com, 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 itsme...@gmail.com, 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 itsme...@gmail.com, and destroy all copies of this > message and any attachments. >
