8:17 a.m.
Hi all!
While testing Weld 2.0.0.CR4 I have been running into a DefinitionException because of an
interceptor that contains one @AroundInvoke and one @PostConstruct method. Since I use
this interceptor at class AND method level it declares @Target({ElementType.METHOD,
ElementType.TYPE}). The error message seems to indicate that I can not have a lifecycle
callback interceptor with @Target METHOD:
"WELD-000619 An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks Interceptor XX declares and
interceptor binding interface YYY with METHOD as its @Target."
Is this true? I just checked the current CDI 1.1 and Interceptor 1.2 spec and could not
find this kind of restriction.
Jens
8:56 a.m.
Why do you need ElementType.METHOD? You cannot use method-level bindings
for lifecycle callback interceptor methods. This has been reverted from
the interceptors spec.
On 04/24/2013 02:17 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
Hi all!
While testing Weld 2.0.0.CR4 I have been running into a
DefinitionException because of an interceptor that contains one
@AroundInvoke and one @PostConstruct method. Since I use this
interceptor at class AND method level it declares
@Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.TYPE}). The error message
seems to indicate that I can not have a lifecycle callback interceptor
with @Target METHOD:
"WELD-000619 An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks Interceptor XX
declares and interceptor binding interface YYY with METHOD as its
@Target."
Is this true? I just checked the current CDI 1.1 and Interceptor 1.2
spec and could not find this kind of restriction.
Jens
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
9:27 a.m.
I need ElementType.METHOD since I want to use the same interceptor binding annotation for
both business method and lifecycle callback interception. However I have a dedicated
@AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct interceptor method. If I declare my annotation at method
level I would expect that @AroundInvoke is applied only.
I just found the related sentence in the interceptor spec. "Method-level interceptors
may not be associated with a lifecycle callback method of the target class." This
statement seems to be OK but I believe this doesn't mean that my interceptor binding
annotation may not specify ElementType.METHOD.
Jens
Von: Jozef Hartinger <jharting@redhat.com<mailto:jharting@redhat.com>>
Datum: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 14:56
An: Jens Schumann
<jens.schumann@openknowledge.de<mailto:jens.schumann@openknowledge.de>>
Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Why do you need ElementType.METHOD? You cannot use method-level bindings for lifecycle
callback interceptor methods. This has been reverted from the interceptors spec.
On 04/24/2013 02:17 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
Hi all!
While testing Weld 2.0.0.CR4 I have been running into a DefinitionException because of an
interceptor that contains one @AroundInvoke and one @PostConstruct method. Since I use
this interceptor at class AND method level it declares @Target({ElementType.METHOD,
ElementType.TYPE}). The error message seems to indicate that I can not have a lifecycle
callback interceptor with @Target METHOD:
"WELD-000619 An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks Interceptor XX declares and
interceptor binding interface YYY with METHOD as its @Target."
Is this true? I just checked the current CDI 1.1 and Interceptor 1.2 spec and could not
find this kind of restriction.
Jens
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
9:57 a.m.
Right, I don't think there needs to be an error if an interceptor with a lifecycle
callback defined on it is bound to a business method.
On 24 Apr 2013, at 14:27, Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de> wrote:
I need ElementType.METHOD since I want to use the same interceptor
binding annotation for both business method and lifecycle callback interception. However I
have a dedicated @AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct interceptor method. If I declare my
annotation at method level I would expect that @AroundInvoke is applied only.
I just found the related sentence in the interceptor spec. "Method-level
interceptors may not be associated with a lifecycle callback method of the target
class." This statement seems to be OK but I believe this doesn't mean that my
interceptor binding annotation may not specify ElementType.METHOD.
Jens
Von: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
Datum: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 14:56
An: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Why do you need ElementType.METHOD? You cannot use method-level bindings for lifecycle
callback interceptor methods. This has been reverted from the interceptors spec.
On 04/24/2013 02:17 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> While testing Weld 2.0.0.CR4 I have been running into a DefinitionException because
of an interceptor that contains one @AroundInvoke and one @PostConstruct method. Since I
use this interceptor at class AND method level it declares @Target({ElementType.METHOD,
ElementType.TYPE}). The error message seems to indicate that I can not have a lifecycle
callback interceptor with @Target METHOD:
>
> "WELD-000619 An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks Interceptor XX declares and
interceptor binding interface YYY with METHOD as its @Target."
>
> Is this true? I just checked the current CDI 1.1 and Interceptor 1.2 spec and could
not find this kind of restriction.
>
> Jens
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
>
> cdi-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
11:11 a.m.
This was explicitly forbidden in CDI 1.0. If the spec allows it I doubt
this was a deliberate change for CDI 1.1 but rather a leftover from the
"method level bindings for lifecycle interceptors" proposal which ended
up being reverted in the interceptors spec.
On 04/24/2013 03:57 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
Right, I don't think there needs to be an error if an interceptor
with a lifecycle callback defined on it is bound to a business method.
On 24 Apr 2013, at 14:27, Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de> wrote:
> I need ElementType.METHOD since I want to use the same interceptor binding annotation
for both business method and lifecycle callback interception. However I have a dedicated
@AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct interceptor method. If I declare my annotation at method
level I would expect that @AroundInvoke is applied only.
>
> I just found the related sentence in the interceptor spec. "Method-level
interceptors may not be associated with a lifecycle callback method of the target
class." This statement seems to be OK but I believe this doesn't mean that my
interceptor binding annotation may not specify ElementType.METHOD.
>
> Jens
>
> Von: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
> Datum: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 14:56
> An: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
> Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
>
> Why do you need ElementType.METHOD? You cannot use method-level bindings for
lifecycle callback interceptor methods. This has been reverted from the interceptors
spec.
>
> On 04/24/2013 02:17 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> While testing Weld 2.0.0.CR4 I have been running into a DefinitionException
because of an interceptor that contains one @AroundInvoke and one @PostConstruct method.
Since I use this interceptor at class AND method level it declares
@Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.TYPE}). The error message seems to indicate that
I can not have a lifecycle callback interceptor with @Target METHOD:
>>
>> "WELD-000619 An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks Interceptor XX declares
and interceptor binding interface YYY with METHOD as its @Target."
>>
>> Is this true? I just checked the current CDI 1.1 and Interceptor 1.2 spec and
could not find this kind of restriction.
>>
>> Jens
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>
>> cdi-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
11:21 a.m.
Understood, but it seems sensible to allow, and I can't find anything prohibiting it.
On 24 Apr 2013, at 16:11, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This was explicitly forbidden in CDI 1.0. If the spec allows it I
doubt this was a deliberate change for CDI 1.1 but rather a leftover from the "method
level bindings for lifecycle interceptors" proposal which ended up being reverted in
the interceptors spec.
On 04/24/2013 03:57 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
> Right, I don't think there needs to be an error if an interceptor with a
lifecycle callback defined on it is bound to a business method.
>
> On 24 Apr 2013, at 14:27, Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
wrote:
>
>> I need ElementType.METHOD since I want to use the same interceptor binding
annotation for both business method and lifecycle callback interception. However I have a
dedicated @AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct interceptor method. If I declare my annotation
at method level I would expect that @AroundInvoke is applied only.
>>
>> I just found the related sentence in the interceptor spec. "Method-level
interceptors may not be associated with a lifecycle callback method of the target
class." This statement seems to be OK but I believe this doesn't mean that my
interceptor binding annotation may not specify ElementType.METHOD.
>>
>> Jens
>>
>> Von: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
>> Datum: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 14:56
>> An: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
>> Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target
"METHOD"
>>
>> Why do you need ElementType.METHOD? You cannot use method-level bindings for
lifecycle callback interceptor methods. This has been reverted from the interceptors
spec.
>>
>> On 04/24/2013 02:17 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> While testing Weld 2.0.0.CR4 I have been running into a DefinitionException
because of an interceptor that contains one @AroundInvoke and one @PostConstruct method.
Since I use this interceptor at class AND method level it declares
@Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.TYPE}). The error message seems to indicate that
I can not have a lifecycle callback interceptor with @Target METHOD:
>>>
>>> "WELD-000619 An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks Interceptor XX
declares and interceptor binding interface YYY with METHOD as its @Target."
>>>
>>> Is this true? I just checked the current CDI 1.1 and Interceptor 1.2 spec and
could not find this kind of restriction.
>>>
>>> Jens
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>
>>> cdi-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
4:55 a.m.
From the interceptors spec pov it seems fine to allow it.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
To: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Understood, but it seems sensible to allow, and I can't find anything
prohibiting it.
On 24 Apr 2013, at 16:11, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> This was explicitly forbidden in CDI 1.0. If the spec allows it I doubt
this was a deliberate change for CDI 1.1 but rather a leftover from the
"method level bindings for lifecycle interceptors" proposal which
ended up being reverted in the interceptors spec.
>
> On 04/24/2013 03:57 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
>> Right, I don't think there needs to be an error if an interceptor
with a lifecycle callback defined on it is bound to a business method.
>>
>> On 24 Apr 2013, at 14:27, Jens Schumann
<jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I need ElementType.METHOD since I want to use the same interceptor
binding annotation for both business method and lifecycle callback interception.
However I have a dedicated @AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct interceptor method.
If I declare my annotation at method level I would expect that @AroundInvoke is
applied only.
>>>
>>> I just found the related sentence in the interceptor spec.
"Method-level interceptors may not be associated with a lifecycle callback
method of the target class." This statement seems to be OK but I believe
this doesn't mean that my interceptor binding annotation may not specify
ElementType.METHOD.
>>>
>>> Jens
>>>
>>> Von: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
>>> Datum: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 14:56
>>> An: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
>>> Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target
"METHOD"
>>>
>>> Why do you need ElementType.METHOD? You cannot use method-level
bindings for lifecycle callback interceptor methods. This has been reverted from
the interceptors spec.
>>>
>>> On 04/24/2013 02:17 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
>>>> Hi all!
>>>>
>>>> While testing Weld 2.0.0.CR4 I have been running into a
DefinitionException because of an interceptor that contains one @AroundInvoke
and one @PostConstruct method. Since I use this interceptor at class AND method
level it declares @Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.TYPE}). The error
message seems to indicate that I can not have a lifecycle callback interceptor
with @Target METHOD:
>>>>
>>>> "WELD-000619 An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks
Interceptor XX declares and interceptor binding interface YYY with METHOD as its
@Target."
>>>>
>>>> Is this true? I just checked the current CDI 1.1 and
Interceptor 1.2 spec and could not find this kind of restriction.
>>>>
>>>> Jens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
4:55 a.m.
From the interceptors spec pov it seems fine to allow it.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
To: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Understood, but it seems sensible to allow, and I can't find anything
prohibiting it.
On 24 Apr 2013, at 16:11, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> This was explicitly forbidden in CDI 1.0. If the spec allows it I doubt
this was a deliberate change for CDI 1.1 but rather a leftover from the
"method level bindings for lifecycle interceptors" proposal which
ended up being reverted in the interceptors spec.
>
> On 04/24/2013 03:57 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
>> Right, I don't think there needs to be an error if an interceptor
with a lifecycle callback defined on it is bound to a business method.
>>
>> On 24 Apr 2013, at 14:27, Jens Schumann
<jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I need ElementType.METHOD since I want to use the same interceptor
binding annotation for both business method and lifecycle callback interception.
However I have a dedicated @AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct interceptor method.
If I declare my annotation at method level I would expect that @AroundInvoke is
applied only.
>>>
>>> I just found the related sentence in the interceptor spec.
"Method-level interceptors may not be associated with a lifecycle callback
method of the target class." This statement seems to be OK but I believe
this doesn't mean that my interceptor binding annotation may not specify
ElementType.METHOD.
>>>
>>> Jens
>>>
>>> Von: Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com>
>>> Datum: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 14:56
>>> An: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
>>> Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target
"METHOD"
>>>
>>> Why do you need ElementType.METHOD? You cannot use method-level
bindings for lifecycle callback interceptor methods. This has been reverted from
the interceptors spec.
>>>
>>> On 04/24/2013 02:17 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
>>>> Hi all!
>>>>
>>>> While testing Weld 2.0.0.CR4 I have been running into a
DefinitionException because of an interceptor that contains one @AroundInvoke
and one @PostConstruct method. Since I use this interceptor at class AND method
level it declares @Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.TYPE}). The error
message seems to indicate that I can not have a lifecycle callback interceptor
with @Target METHOD:
>>>>
>>>> "WELD-000619 An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks
Interceptor XX declares and interceptor binding interface YYY with METHOD as its
@Target."
>>>>
>>>> Is this true? I just checked the current CDI 1.1 and
Interceptor 1.2 spec and could not find this kind of restriction.
>>>>
>>>> Jens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
6:39 a.m.
Yes, please.
On 04/25/2013 12:27 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
Am 25.04.13 10:55 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter
<struberg(a)yahoo.de>:
> >From the interceptors spec pov it seems fine to allow it.
So I should file a WELD Bug then? ;)
Jens
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
4:28 p.m.
I forgot to post it here: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416.
Jens
Am 25.04.13 12:39 schrieb "Jozef Hartinger" unter <jharting(a)redhat.com>:
Yes, please.
On 04/25/2013 12:27 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
> Am 25.04.13 10:55 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter <struberg(a)yahoo.de>:
>
>> >From the interceptors spec pov it seems fine to allow it.
>
> So I should file a WELD Bug then? ;)
>
> Jens
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
4012
days inactive
4017
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jens Schumann -
Jozef Hartinger -
Mark Struberg -
Pete Muir