Dan,<br><br>thanks a lot for your reply..<br><br>Yeah, it cause weird behaviour when not handled in the expected chain.<br><br><br>Michael<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/3/31 Dan Allen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan.j.allen@gmail.com">dan.j.allen@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:19, Michael Schütz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michaelschuetz83@gmail.com" target="_blank">michaelschuetz83@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi to all,<br><br>why is asynchronous interceptor "client-typed" ?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I believe the idea here is to defer the call to the EJB (as the type is only relevant when the interceptor is applied to an EJB). In fact, the client/server distinction is whether the interceptor is applied before delegating to the EJB proxy or whether the interceptor participates in the interceptor chain that's handled by the EJB container. So it's really a subtle concern.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Dan</div><div><br></div></div><font color="#888888">-- <br><div>Dan Allen</div>Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><div><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br></div><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>