[cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods
John D. Ament
john.d.ament at gmail.com
Wed Feb 10 07:48:24 EST 2016
+1 for adding this feature to the spec.
-1 for adding it the way it is written currently. This isn't to say that
Mark's idea is bad, its just that it puts too much onus on the application
developer to know the structure of its classes, both internally developed
and externally provided.
We should follow a pattern closer to EJB (in my opinion) where the
non-proxyable methods are just not proxied - you won't get transactions,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:37 AM Antoine Sabot-Durand <
antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 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.
> Antoine Sabot-Durand
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev