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>:
-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> 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.