[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-496) Clarification (or completion) for interceptor binding to session bean
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-496?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-496:
-------------------------------------
The problem with the TCK test is that it verifies that the container throws a deployment
exception if an intercepted session bean is not proxyable. This is an implication of
{quote}
A bean type must be proxyable if an injection point resolves to a bean:
• that requires a client proxy, or
• that has an associated decorator, or
• that has a bound interceptor.
Otherwise, the container automatically detects the problem, and treats it as a deployment
problem
{quote}
The issue here is whether CDI's DeploymentException should really be thrown for a
session bean or whether we should let the EJB container fail in whathever way it prefers
(and therefore the aforementioned part of the spec should be changed to affect managed
beans only).
Clarification (or completion) for interceptor binding to session
bean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: CDI-496
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-496
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Components: Interceptors
Affects Versions: 1.2.Final
Reporter: Tomas Remes
Fix For: 2.0 (discussion)
It's not clear if the session bean can have interceptor binding and what rules (if
any) apply to this case. In the beginning of chapter 9. Interceptor bindings there is
following statement:
{quote}Managed beans and EJB session and message-driven beans support
interception.{quote}
But at the end of "9.3. Binding an interceptor to a bean" There is only:
{quote}
If a managed bean has a class-level or method-level interceptor binding, the managed bean
must
be a proxyable bean type, as defined in Section 3.15, “Unproxyable bean types”.
{quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)