Hi all, In a recent discussion with Martin, I realized that the use of @Priotiy is not consistent in CDI 1.2: - For Interceptor and decorator the lowest value in @Priority is first (def in interceptor spec and 8.2.1) - For Alternatives the Highest value in @Priroty is first (def in 5.2.2) Since we have these different interpretation of @Priority value in the spec , we may find more consistent to change the definition of event ordering with the @Priority annotation. Right now we have: "Observers with smaller priority values are called first" We may find more intuitive to change it to: "Observers with higher priority values are called first"

It will remove the oxymoron effect of the sentence and align this ordering on @Alternative way of using @Priorty. Wdyt? Antoine _______________________________________________ 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.

I think differently. For Alternatives, the Alternative with the highest value is picked, while the others are ignored. There is no so much invoked sequentially. However, for interceptors/decorators/events, they are chained. Therefore, I think events should follow the same fashion as interceptors/decorators, which is to follow the ascending order.

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(a)uk.ibm.com Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB From: Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt; To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt;, CDI Java EE Specification <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Date: 28/11/2016 12:10 Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Defining the order of event thru priority Sent by: cdi-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dne 28.11.2016 v 11:43 Antoine Sabot-Durand napsal(a): > Hi all, > > In a recent discussion with Martin, I realized that the use of @Priotiy > is not consistent in CDI 1.2: > > - For Interceptor and decorator the lowest value in @Priority is first > (def in interceptor spec and 8.2.1) > - For Alternatives the Highest value in @Priroty is first (def in 5.2.2) > > Since we have these different interpretation of @Priority value in the > spec , we may find more consistent to change the definition of event > ordering with the @Priority annotation. > Right now we have: > > "Observers with smaller priority values are called first" > > We may find more intuitive to change it to: > > "Observers with higher priority values are called first" I believe this one makes much more sense... +1 > > It will remove the oxymoron effect of the sentence and align this > ordering on @Alternative way of using @Priorty. > > Wdyt? > > Antoine > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. 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