[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-496?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy...
]
Martin Kouba commented on CDI-496:
----------------------------------
I think we cannot simply leave out the word *managed* in the following sentences:
{quote}
Interceptor bindings may be used to associate interceptors with any _managed_ bean that is
not a decorator.
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 Unproxyable bean types.
{quote}
Because the part *the managed bean must be a proxyable bean type* is not accurate.
Also note that the Interceptors spec, Chapter 3, "Associating Interceptors using
Interceptor Bindings" is clear that bindings may be used to associate interceptors
with any
*component* that is not itself an interceptor (incl. 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
Reporter: Tomas Remes
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)