<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Pete Muir <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Agreed, the interceptor is definitely part of the public API - they have to reference the class in their beans.xml.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep, and beans.xml must be considered "their code" (as a counter to Shane's point).</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Having it in the javadoc is no replacement for a decent ref guide, but can be useful for some IMO.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>Should we have Maven build merge JavaDoc for interceptors and decorators into the JavaDoc for the api/ module? This should be possible based on name filtering (i.e., *Interceptor, *Decorator). It will require some build trickery, though.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Dan</div><div> </div></div>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>