pmuir at redhat.com
Wed Apr 27 12:49:23 EDT 2011
Great, thanks George!
In this case, what we'll do is assign you the issue and add a comment that you are working on it and responsible for the delivery.
On 27 Apr 2011, at 17:38, George Gastaldi wrote:
> 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