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

Am 10.02.2016 um 14:07 schrieb Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt;: Dne 10.2.2016 v 13:48 John D. Ament napsal(a): > +1 for adding this feature to the spec. > > -1 for adding it the way it is written currently. This isn't to say > that Mark's idea is bad, its just that it puts too much onus on the > application developer to know the structure of its classes, both > internally developed and externally provided. > > We should follow a pattern closer to EJB (in my opinion) where the > non-proxyable methods are just not proxied - you won't get transactions, > etc available. -1 I think you cannot declare a final method on a NIV session bean (you get validation error) and it's easy to create a proxy for local/remote interface - no such methods. I also think we cannot implement this in Weld as we're using subclassing for client proxies. If you don't override (i.e. if you ignore) such a method than it will not be invoked upon the contextual instance but upon the clien proxy instance (subclass). > > John > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:37 AM Antoine Sabot-Durand > <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net <mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net>> 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 <mailto:cdi-dev@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. > -- Martin Kouba Software Engineer Red Hat, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ 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.