[weld-dev] Fwd: @AroundInvoke -- JCDI vs EJB3 and return type Object?

[Gavin King]

Yes, its a bug in the example. The spec doesn't say anything about the
signature of @AroundInvoke methods, we leave that to the interceptors
spec.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Sven Linstaedt
<sven.linstaedt at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Is this a minor bug in the spec? If this s the case, please also review the
> example in 9.5.1.
> br, Sven
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sven Linstaedt <sven.linstaedt at googlemail.com>
> Date: 2009/10/23
> Subject: Re: @AroundInvoke -- JCDI vs EJB3 and return type Object?
> To: openwebbeans-dev at incubator.apache.org
>
>
> At a first glance I would consider this a bug in the example. I can not
> imagine Gavin introduced some kind of "special interceptors for void
> returning methods". This would rather be a use case for decorators.
> I will forward your question to the jboss list, if you don't mind.
> Besides... thanks for for the review.
> br, Sven
>
> 2009/10/22 Eric Covener <covener at apache.org>
>>
>> Interceptor methods with @AroundInvoke in EJB3 requires a return type
>> of Object, which is enforced by
>> WebBeansUtil.java::checkAroundInvokeAnnotationCriterias().    In EJB3,
>> Interceptors return InvocationContext.proceed() to their caller.
>>
>> However it seems that @AroundInvoke in JCDI is documented somewhat
>> differently -- in the JCDI spec (1.3.6) the example has a void return
>> type and just calls InvocationContext.proceed().
>>
>> Should the JCDI spec example look just like EJB3, or is this an
>> OWB-specific restriction?
>>
>> --
>> Eric Covener
>> covener at gmail.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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