[weld-dev] TCK Interceptors Classes

[Marius Bogoevici]

Gavin King wrote:
> Hrm section 2.6 of the common annotations spec seems to confirm your
> interpretation. What's very problematic here is that the interceptors
> spec uses a different terminology to talk about the callbacks that it
> is defining. Which leads to my interpretation that it is defining a
> different, distinct set of callbacks.
Yes, what we currently have in Weld and jboss-interceptors is based on 
the interpretation that @PostConstruct et al., when defined on an 
interceptor, are defining interceptor methods - and since the 
interceptor is initialized/destroyed at the same time with the target 
object - they serve to initialize/destroy the interceptor as well.

Besides the arguments discussed before, I was also led towards my 
interpretation by the fact that the  interceptors spec is driven by the 
EJB 3.1 spec, and this approach was consistent with what previously 
happened in EJB3.

But you are right about the fact that in EE6 interceptors are managed 
beans as well, and  in principle they could also have their own 
@PostConstruct/@PreDestroy events, separate from from the lifecycle 
events of the classes they intercept. There might be a wrinkle because 
of the Commons Annotations prohibition on having two distinct 
@PostConstruct methods - but this could just mean that an interceptor 
that specifies @PostConstruct void doStuff(){...} is initializing itself 
and may not specify a post-construct interception method for the target 
instance ).

So - I'm also adding Ken to this discussion, hoping to get some 
clarifications on the actual intent of the interceptor specification for 
EJBs (and not only) - namely, whether the intent was to redefine 
@PostConstruct/@PreDestroy for interceptor classes (so that they are not 
initialization/cleanup methods for the interceptor instance itself, but 
interceptor methods for the target object ) or if this does really 
define a new set of callbacks.


> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Marius Bogoevici <mariusb at redhat.com> wrote:
>   
>> Gavin,
>>
>> This is very ambiguous, as the 1.1 version of the Interceptors specification
>> states very clearly the signature rules for defining lifecycle interceptor
>> methods on interceptor classes and target classes.
>>
>> Also, this could mean that an interceptor class can specify two different
>> @PostConstruct or @PreDestroy methods, which would refer to different
>> targets (the intercepted instance/the interceptor itself), but the
>> specification says very clearly:
>> "At most one method of a given interceptor class can be designated as an
>> around-invoke method, an around-timeout method, a post-construct method, or
>> pre-destroy method."
>>
>> Also, it is not very clear to me what would be the benefit of a separate
>> @PostConstruct/@PreDestroy method for the interceptor itself, as interceptor
>> lifecycles are virtually the same as for the target objects.
>>
>> Marius
>>
>>
>>
>> Gavin King wrote:
>>
>> Check section 5.2.5 of the EE spec. It appears to confirm my
>> understanding of this stuff.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> At least, that's my understanding of how interceptors are treated in
>> EE6. You would have to check with Roberto and Ken for an absolutely
>> definitive answer.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Right, but the interceptor itself has a lifecycle. It's a kind of
>> managed bean. So it can have the callbacks that all managed beans can
>> have.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are two differents scenario for lifecycle callbacks in interceptors
>> specification
>>
>> 1* Used in interceptor class with InvocationContext parameter
>>      @PreDestroy
>>      public void blabla(InvocationContext){}
>> 2* Used in bean class without any parameter
>>      @PreDestroy
>>      public void blabla(){}
>>
>> In TCK, @PreDestroy is used in interceptor class. So it may take
>> InvocationContext.
>>
>> --Gurkan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com>
>> To: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 9:10:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [weld-dev] TCK Interceptors Classes
>>
>> Hrm, I think there are two kinds of @PreDestroy methods for an interceptor:
>>
>> @PreDestroy void foo(InvocationContext) { .. }  -> the intercepted
>> bean is being destroyed
>> @PreDestroy void foo() { .. }  -> the interceptor itself is being destroyed
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi;
>>
>> Some interceptors classes in the TCK test suites implement @PreDestroy
>> methods. AFAIK, interceptors specification says that methods with
>> @PreDestroy in interceptor class must take InvocationContext parameter.
>> But
>> in TCK, those methods do not take InvocationContext parameter
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.context.dependent.TransactionalInterceptor
>>
>> @PreDestroy public void destroy()
>>    {
>>       destroyed = true;
>>    }
>>
>> Is it correct?
>>
>> --Gurkan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> weld-dev mailing list
>> weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>> http://hibernate.org
>> http://seamframework.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>> http://hibernate.org
>> http://seamframework.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>> http://hibernate.org
>> http://seamframework.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/attachments/20091201/1ab82421/attachment-0001.html