Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods

Sure, that might probably be a viable way to do it. Oki, here are the two use cases which we need to solve: 1.) @Produces @ApplicationScoped public SomeWeirdThirdPartyClassWithFinalMethods createIt() {return …}; 2.) @ApplicationSCoped public class MySubclass extends SomeWeirdThirdPartyClassWithFinalMethods {} Any other use case? Can you please elaborate how your idea will look like? Just a few ideas so we can get it running. txs and LieGrue, strub PS: Again: I’m NOT interested to get my approach in. All I’m interested in is a _solution_ for this real world problem. But there was simply no alternative proposed so far… > Am 12.02.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;: > > -1 > > The problem seems real, but proposed approach doesn't sit right with > me. I think it would be better to follow the EJB approach, and add a > way to be able to declare a method as "not a business method" (a > business method is also a thing in CDI IIRC). > > For example, e.g. using beans.xml and an annotation. This then allows > the spec to consistently treat this public method as not a business > method. > > On 9 February 2016 at 16:36, Antoine Sabot-Durand > <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> There have been a lot of discussion around CDI-527 in the last weeks: >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-527 >> >> Mark proposed a PR: >> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/271 >> >> But we don't agree on adding this feature to the spec. >> This vote is to decide if we should add this feature at the spec level now, >> or not. >> Should we vote this feature down, that won't mean it will be completely >> dropped: it could be implemented as non portable feature in both Spec or >> even be included as experimental feature in the spec (in annexes) as >> describe in the PR comments >> Vote starts now, only vote from EG members are binding (but you can give >> your opinion if not part of the EG) and will last 72 hours. >> >> You vote with the following values: >> +1 : I'm favorable for adding this feature in the spec >> -1 : I'm against adding this feature in the spec >> 0 : I don't care >> >> Thank you for your attention and your vote. >> >> Antoine Sabot-Durand >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cdi-dev mailing list >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> >> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code >> under the Apache License, Version 2 >> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas >> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual >> property rights inherent in such information. > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 ( http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.