[cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods
EMIJIANG at uk.ibm.com
Tue Feb 9 12:42:59 EST 2016
This is a really useful feature as more and more customers will move
forward to Java8 and might hit this problem.
WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278
Email: emijiang at uk.ibm.com
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM at IBMGB
From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann at openknowledge.de>
To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>,
Date: 09/02/2016 17:15
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying
of classes with non-private final methods
Sent by: cdi-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org
(even though I can live with a portable alternative approach to the
So far I did not express my support for this PR even though I promised to
do so. Unable to proxy those classes is a major issue to me while
migrating old software to a newer environment.
As soon as you deal with 5 to 10+ years old software and try to migrate
your large application step by step you will encounter framework base
classes with (protected) final methods. CDI, @Inject and interceptors help
a lot to cleanup the old stuff, however I have to extend (currently
unproxyable) framework base classes to do so. Example: I have to extend
AbstractFrameworkXyzAction with public and/ or protected final methods to
implement use case logic, and the derived classes should be CDI beans.
On the other hand - changing the old jar's is not an option either.
With this feature I can stop copying the modified base classes to my local
archive (mostly .war) in order to override the old classes.
Von: <cdi-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org> on behalf of Antoine Sabot-Durand <
antoine at sabot-durand.net>
Datum: Tuesday 9 February 2016 17:36
An: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
Betreff: [cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes
with non-private final methods
There have been a lot of discussion around CDI-527 in the last weeks:
Mark proposed a PR:
But we don't agree on adding this feature to the spec.
This vote is to decide if we should add this feature at the spec level
now, or not.
Should we vote this feature down, that won't mean it will be completely
dropped: it could be implemented as non portable feature in both Spec or
even be included as experimental feature in the spec (in annexes) as
describe in the PR comments
Vote starts now, only vote from EG members are binding (but you can give
your opinion if not part of the EG) and will last 72 hours.
You vote with the following values:
+1 : I'm favorable for adding this feature in the spec
-1 : I'm against adding this feature in the spec
0 : I don't care
Thank you for your attention and your vote.
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev