[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-403?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Mathieu Lachance updated CDI-403:
---------------------------------
Description:
As discussed with Jozef Hartinger on the WELD forum thread (see forum reference and
CDI-224),
would it be possible to revisit why decorator requires an interface ?
I do not understand the semantic difference between:
1. a decorator to be an abstract class which implements an interface, which delegate to
the same interface.
2. a decorator to be a concrete class which extends a another class, which delegates to
the same class.
Why 1. should be allowed and why 2. should be disallowed ?
As stated in CDI-224, if there is no technical reason of disallowing 2., should it be then
considerate as a vendor specific feature to support it whether or not ?
Thanks,
why decorator requires interface
--------------------------------
Key: CDI-403
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-403
Project: CDI Specification Issues
Issue Type: Clarification
Reporter: Mathieu Lachance
As discussed with Jozef Hartinger on the WELD forum thread (see forum reference and
CDI-224),
would it be possible to revisit why decorator requires an interface ?
I do not understand the semantic difference between:
1. a decorator to be an abstract class which implements an interface, which delegate to
the same interface.
2. a decorator to be a concrete class which extends a another class, which delegates to
the same class.
Why 1. should be allowed and why 2. should be disallowed ?
As stated in CDI-224, if there is no technical reason of disallowing 2., should it be
then considerate as a vendor specific feature to support it whether or not ?
Thanks,
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira