I wonder if this is somehow related to an issue I saw
pop up on SO recently.
Basically, there's an issue where if an interceptor is
@Priority and listed in beans.xml, it gets invoked
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Pete Muir <firstname.lastname@example.org
> Hi Tang,
> I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question
> Perhaps you could provide a concrete example of
what you would prefer?
> On 17 Oct 2013, at 09:03, Tang Yong <email@example.com
>> CC: Bill
>> I have a question about Interceptors's
>> The story should come from  and , and
from "5.3 Ordering
>> Interceptors using the Priority Annotation"
of JSR 318.
>> "An interceptor bound to a component, a
component method, or constructor
>> using interceptor binding may be enabled for
the entire application by
>> applying the Priority annotation, along with
a priority value, on the
>> interceptor class."
>> From another fact, Interceptors are
deployment-specific and are disabled
>> by default. Like alternatives, interceptors
have to be
>> enabled by using the CDI deployment
descriptor beans.xml of the jar.
>> Well, if I uses interceptors binding, I will
meet two cases,
>> 1) I must enable interceptors in beans.xml
explicitly if I am not ready
>> to use @Priority.
>> 2) Once I uses @Priority, I need to take care
of whether to need to
>> declare interceptors in beans.xml becase this
>> invocation order of interceptors.
>> Based on such facts, enable interceptors in
beans.xml explicitly has
>> brought two different resposibilities for
interceptors binding, so, for
>> an user, this has caused some puzzles just as
I made a mistake in .
>> My question is that why we can not make
"enable interceptors in
>> beans.xml explicitly" bring *only one*
>> : https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1528
>> Tang Yong
>> Senior Engineer
>> GlassFish Committer (OSGi & OSGi-JavaEE)
>> OSGi Alliance Supporter
>> Blog: http://osgizone.typepad.com/tangyong/
>> Nanjing Fujitsu NanDa Software Tec CO.,LTD
>> Tel: +86-25-86630566-8310
>> Fax: +86-25-83317685