[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-496?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Martin Kouba commented on CDI-496:
----------------------------------
First of all I'm not sure EJB requirements exactly match CDI requirements (e.g. EJB
3.2 does not forbid non-static final methods, see "4.9.2 Session Bean Class").
Also sentences like:
{quote}
Interceptor bindings may be used to associate interceptors with any managed bean that is
not a decorator.
{quote} are just confusing (9.3. Binding an interceptor to a bean).
Lastly the wording:
bq. ...the managed bean must be a proxyable bean type
is not accurate and would deserve a minor revision.
However, I would lower the priority of this issue as it's obvious that bindings can be
used for session beans.
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)