gegastaldi at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 12:38:10 EDT 2011
Yes, That´s what I meant. Sorry about not being clear on the first time.
2011/4/27 Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>:
> On 27 Apr 2011, at 15:24, George Gastaldi wrote:
>> I was just browsing the issues, and found out one issue on the TBD
>> list that really shouldn´t be left out on CDI 1.1.
>> "Provide support for binding an invocation handler to an interface or
>> abstract class" - https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-110
>> In fact, it is the ServiceHandler feature implemented in Seam Solder.
>> There is a use case that is the same as listed on
>> that makes it necessary and could be better adopted on other use cases
>> as well.
> I think the reason I didn't add this to the proposal was that I didn't want to add too many new features, and given that this can be implemented very easily as an add on, I left it off.
> Anyone else got a strong feeling on this?
>> I may also be responsible on implementing this.
> How do you mean? That you would be able to write the spec changes for adding this feature?
More information about the cdi-dev