+1.
This is a really useful feature as more and more customers will move forward to Java8 and might hit this problem.

Many thanks,
Emily
===========================
Emily Jiang
WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead

MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278

Email: emijiang@uk.ibm.com
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB

From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann@openknowledge.de>
To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>,
Date: 09/02/2016 17:15
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods
Sent by: cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org

+1

(even though I can live with a portable alternative approach to the current PR)

So far I did not express my support for this PR even though I promised to do so. Unable to proxy those classes is a major issue to me while migrating old software to a newer environment.

As soon as you deal with 5 to 10+ years old software and try to migrate your large application step by step you will encounter framework base classes with (protected) final methods. CDI, @Inject and interceptors help a lot to cleanup the old stuff, however I have to extend (currently unproxyable) framework base classes to do so. Example: I have to extend AbstractFrameworkXyzAction with public and/ or protected final methods to implement use case logic, and the derived classes should be CDI beans.

On the other hand - changing the old jar's is not an option either.

With this feature I can stop copying the modified base classes to my local archive (mostly .war) in order to override the old classes.

Jens

Von: <cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org> on behalf of Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@sabot-durand.net>
Datum: Tuesday 9 February 2016 17:36
An: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Betreff: [cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods

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@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-devNote 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.

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU