2:01 p.m.
Hi,
I just went through this thread and corresponding issue
WELD-1416<https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416>and still not
clear for me
Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current version of spec:
"With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors, an
interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding
types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback interceptor into
class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from DefinitionException ?
or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined and none of
both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
@Interceptor
@Measure
public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
@AroundInvoke
public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception { ... }
@PostConstruct
public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
*@AroundConstruct*
Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {...}
}
@InterceptorBinding
@Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Inherited
public @interface Measure {
}
thanx for clarification,
Radim
3:56 p.m.
New subject: Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Hi Radim,
no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement Jozef
is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy
lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that are
defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
@PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor binding
has to defined as Target(TYPE).
Martin
Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
Hi,
I just went through this thread and corresponding issue WELD-1416
<https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still not clear for me
Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current version of spec:
"With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors,
an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback interceptor into
class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from DefinitionException ?
or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined and none
of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
@Interceptor
@Measure
public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
@AroundInvoke
public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception { ... }
@PostConstruct
public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
*@AroundConstruct*
Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {...}
}
@InterceptorBinding
@Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Inherited
public @interface Measure {
}
thanx for clarification,
Radim
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
10:15 p.m.
New subject: Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Hi all,
(I have been way too busy to comment on this, and I have the impression
that my WELD bug report was too late already).
Jozef closed my bug report [1] stating that the new interceptor spec now
contains the following sentence:
"With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors, an
interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding
types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
From what I understood this sentence went into the interceptor spec
because of JIRA issue "Recent changes to how lifecycle event interceptors
are bound introduce questionable behavior" [2]. What is interesting here
is that a questionable behavior led to a strict ban instead of a "non
portable" declaration. I know this is the wrong mailing list - but
wouldn't you expect a non portable declaration in such a situation?
What is more frustrating here is that the spec prohibits a feature that
works with both WELD and OWB.
In my case the new interceptor spec now requires two annotations if I want
to apply the same behavior to a lifecycle callback AND a business method.
Since the new interceptor spec is a maintenance release it should be easy
to fix, shouldn't it? ;)
Jens
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416
[2] https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-20
Am 11.06.13 15:56 schrieb "Martin Kouba" unter <mkouba(a)redhat.com>:
Hi Radim,
no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement Jozef
is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy
lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that are
defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
@PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor binding
has to defined as Target(TYPE).
Martin
Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> I just went through this thread and corresponding issue WELD-1416
> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still not clear for me
>
> Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current version of spec:
> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors,
> an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
> binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>
> but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback interceptor into
> class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from DefinitionException ?
> or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined and none
> of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
>
> enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
>
> @Interceptor
> @Measure
> public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
>
> @AroundInvoke
> public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception { ... }
>
> @PostConstruct
> public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
>
> *@AroundConstruct*
> Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {...}
> }
>
> @InterceptorBinding
> @Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
> @Inherited
> public @interface Measure {
> }
>
>
> thanx for clarification,
> Radim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
11:57 p.m.
New subject: Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Jozef filed an issue with the Interceptors spec:
https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-21. We didn't sort out
this statement completely when the text was moved from the CDI spec to
the Interceptors spec.
-marina
On 6/18/13 1:15 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
Hi all,
(I have been way too busy to comment on this, and I have the impression
that my WELD bug report was too late already).
Jozef closed my bug report [1] stating that the new interceptor spec now
contains the following sentence:
"With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors, an
interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding
types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>From what I understood this sentence went into the interceptor spec
because of JIRA issue "Recent changes to how lifecycle event interceptors
are bound introduce questionable behavior" [2]. What is interesting here
is that a questionable behavior led to a strict ban instead of a "non
portable" declaration. I know this is the wrong mailing list - but
wouldn't you expect a non portable declaration in such a situation?
What is more frustrating here is that the spec prohibits a feature that
works with both WELD and OWB.
In my case the new interceptor spec now requires two annotations if I want
to apply the same behavior to a lifecycle callback AND a business method.
Since the new interceptor spec is a maintenance release it should be easy
to fix, shouldn't it? ;)
Jens
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416
[2] https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-20
Am 11.06.13 15:56 schrieb "Martin Kouba" unter <mkouba(a)redhat.com>:
> Hi Radim,
>
> no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement Jozef
> is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy
> lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that are
> defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
> @PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor binding
> has to defined as Target(TYPE).
>
> Martin
>
> Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just went through this thread and corresponding issue WELD-1416
>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still not clear for me
>>
>> Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current version of spec:
>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors,
>> an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
>> binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>
>> but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback interceptor into
>> class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from DefinitionException ?
>> or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined and none
>> of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
>>
>> enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
>>
>> @Interceptor
>> @Measure
>> public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
>>
>> @AroundInvoke
>> public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception { ... }
>>
>> @PostConstruct
>> public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
>>
>> *@AroundConstruct*
>> Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {...}
>> }
>>
>> @InterceptorBinding
>> @Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>> @Inherited
>> public @interface Measure {
>> }
>>
>>
>> thanx for clarification,
>> Radim
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
9:55 a.m.
New subject: Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
The restriction is not new. It's been around since CDI 1.0 which says:
"An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
binding types that are defined as @Target(TYPE). If an
interceptor for lifecycle callbacks declares an interceptor binding type
that is defined @Target({TYPE, METHOD}), the container
automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error."
For EE7 this was just moved to the interceptors spec and adjusted to
count with @AroundConstruct.
On 06/18/2013 10:15 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
Hi all,
(I have been way too busy to comment on this, and I have the impression
that my WELD bug report was too late already).
Jozef closed my bug report [1] stating that the new interceptor spec now
contains the following sentence:
"With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors, an
interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding
types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>From what I understood this sentence went into the interceptor spec
because of JIRA issue "Recent changes to how lifecycle event interceptors
are bound introduce questionable behavior" [2]. What is interesting here
is that a questionable behavior led to a strict ban instead of a "non
portable" declaration. I know this is the wrong mailing list - but
wouldn't you expect a non portable declaration in such a situation?
What is more frustrating here is that the spec prohibits a feature that
works with both WELD and OWB.
In my case the new interceptor spec now requires two annotations if I want
to apply the same behavior to a lifecycle callback AND a business method.
Since the new interceptor spec is a maintenance release it should be easy
to fix, shouldn't it? ;)
Jens
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416
[2] https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-20
Am 11.06.13 15:56 schrieb "Martin Kouba" unter <mkouba(a)redhat.com>:
> Hi Radim,
>
> no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement Jozef
> is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy
> lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that are
> defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
> @PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor binding
> has to defined as Target(TYPE).
>
> Martin
>
> Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just went through this thread and corresponding issue WELD-1416
>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still not clear for me
>>
>> Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current version of spec:
>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors,
>> an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
>> binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>
>> but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback interceptor into
>> class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from DefinitionException ?
>> or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined and none
>> of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
>>
>> enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
>>
>> @Interceptor
>> @Measure
>> public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
>>
>> @AroundInvoke
>> public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception { ... }
>>
>> @PostConstruct
>> public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
>>
>> *@AroundConstruct*
>> Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {...}
>> }
>>
>> @InterceptorBinding
>> @Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>> @Inherited
>> public @interface Measure {
>> }
>>
>>
>> thanx for clarification,
>> Radim
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
7:22 p.m.
New subject: Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
+1 for relaxing this restriction again to how it was before.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
To: Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com>; Radim Hanuš <radim.hanus(a)gmail.com>
Cc: "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Hi all,
(I have been way too busy to comment on this, and I have the impression
that my WELD bug report was too late already).
Jozef closed my bug report [1] stating that the new interceptor spec now
contains the following sentence:
"With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors, an
interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding
types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
> From what I understood this sentence went into the interceptor spec
because of JIRA issue "Recent changes to how lifecycle event interceptors
are bound introduce questionable behavior" [2]. What is interesting here
is that a questionable behavior led to a strict ban instead of a "non
portable" declaration. I know this is the wrong mailing list - but
wouldn't you expect a non portable declaration in such a situation?
What is more frustrating here is that the spec prohibits a feature that
works with both WELD and OWB.
In my case the new interceptor spec now requires two annotations if I want
to apply the same behavior to a lifecycle callback AND a business method.
Since the new interceptor spec is a maintenance release it should be easy
to fix, shouldn't it? ;)
Jens
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416
[2] https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-20
Am 11.06.13 15:56 schrieb "Martin Kouba" unter
<mkouba(a)redhat.com>:
> Hi Radim,
>
> no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement Jozef
> is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy
> lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that are
> defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
> @PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor binding
> has to defined as Target(TYPE).
>
> Martin
>
> Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just went through this thread and corresponding issue WELD-1416
>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still not clear
for me
>>
>> Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current version of
spec:
>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback
interceptors,
>> an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
>> binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>
>> but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback interceptor into
>> class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from DefinitionException ?
>> or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined and none
>> of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
>>
>> enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
>>
>> @Interceptor
>> @Measure
>> public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
>>
>> @AroundInvoke
>> public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception { ... }
>>
>> @PostConstruct
>> public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
>>
>> *@AroundConstruct*
>> Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {...}
>> }
>>
>> @InterceptorBinding
>> @Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>> @Inherited
>> public @interface Measure {
>> }
>>
>>
>> thanx for clarification,
>> Radim
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
10:07 p.m.
New subject: Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
This is what it was in CDI 1.0:
"An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
binding types that are defined as @Target(TYPE). If an
interceptor for lifecycle callbacks declares an interceptor binding type
that is defined @Target({TYPE, METHOD}), the container
automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error."
So the restriction (however too strict) didn't change.
-marina
On 6/19/13 10:22 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
+1 for relaxing this restriction again to how it was before.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
> To: Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com>; Radim Hanuš
<radim.hanus(a)gmail.com>
> Cc: "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 22:15
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
>
> Hi all,
>
> (I have been way too busy to comment on this, and I have the impression
> that my WELD bug report was too late already).
>
> Jozef closed my bug report [1] stating that the new interceptor spec now
> contains the following sentence:
>
> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback interceptors, an
> interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding
> types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>
>> From what I understood this sentence went into the interceptor spec
> because of JIRA issue "Recent changes to how lifecycle event interceptors
> are bound introduce questionable behavior" [2]. What is interesting here
> is that a questionable behavior led to a strict ban instead of a "non
> portable" declaration. I know this is the wrong mailing list - but
> wouldn't you expect a non portable declaration in such a situation?
>
>
> What is more frustrating here is that the spec prohibits a feature that
> works with both WELD and OWB.
>
> In my case the new interceptor spec now requires two annotations if I want
> to apply the same behavior to a lifecycle callback AND a business method.
>
> Since the new interceptor spec is a maintenance release it should be easy
> to fix, shouldn't it? ;)
>
> Jens
> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416
> [2] https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-20
>
> Am 11.06.13 15:56 schrieb "Martin Kouba" unter
> <mkouba(a)redhat.com>:
>
>> Hi Radim,
>>
>> no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement Jozef
>> is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy
>> lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that are
>> defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
>> @PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor binding
>> has to defined as Target(TYPE).
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I just went through this thread and corresponding issue WELD-1416
>>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still not clear
> for me
>>> Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current version of
> spec:
>>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback
> interceptors,
>>> an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
>>> binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>>
>>> but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback interceptor into
>>> class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from DefinitionException ?
>>> or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined and none
>>> of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
>>>
>>> enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
>>>
>>> @Interceptor
>>> @Measure
>>> public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
>>>
>>> @AroundInvoke
>>> public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception { ... }
>>>
>>> @PostConstruct
>>> public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
>>>
>>> *@AroundConstruct*
>>> Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {...}
>>> }
>>>
>>> @InterceptorBinding
>>> @Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
>>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>>> @Inherited
>>> public @interface Measure {
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> thanx for clarification,
>>> Radim
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
10:19 a.m.
New subject: Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
right, I was only looking at the old interceptors spec - my bad.
Now should we try to relax this restriction, or is there some good reason for it?
Liegrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina(a)oracle.com>
To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
Cc: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>; Martin Kouba
<mkouba(a)redhat.com>; Radim Hanuš <radim.hanus(a)gmail.com>;
"cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2013, 22:07
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
T his is what it was in CDI 1.0:
"An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
binding types that are defined as @Target(TYPE). If an
interceptor for lifecycle callbacks declares an interceptor binding type
that is defined @Target({TYPE, METHOD}), the container
automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error."
So the restriction (however too strict) didn't change.
-marina
On 6/19/13 10:22 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> +1 for relaxing this restriction again to how it was before.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
>> To: Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com>; Radim Hanuš
<radim.hanus(a)gmail.com>
>> Cc: "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 22:15
>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target
"METHOD"
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> (I have been way too busy to comment on this, and I have the impression
>> that my WELD bug report was too late already).
>>
>> Jozef closed my bug report [1] stating that the new interceptor spec
now
>> contains the following sentence:
>>
>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback
interceptors, an
>> interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
binding
>> types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>
>>> From what I understood this sentence went into the interceptor
spec
>> because of JIRA issue "Recent changes to how lifecycle event
interceptors
>> are bound introduce questionable behavior" [2]. What is
interesting here
>> is that a questionable behavior led to a strict ban instead of a
"non
>> portable" declaration. I know this is the wrong mailing list - but
>> wouldn't you expect a non portable declaration in such a situation?
>>
>>
>> What is more frustrating here is that the spec prohibits a feature that
>> works with both WELD and OWB.
>>
>> In my case the new interceptor spec now requires two annotations if I
want
>> to apply the same behavior to a lifecycle callback AND a business
method.
>>
>> Since the new interceptor spec is a maintenance release it should be
easy
>> to fix, shouldn't it? ;)
>>
>> Jens
>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416
>> [2] https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-20
>>
>> Am 11.06.13 15:56 schrieb "Martin Kouba" unter
>> <mkouba(a)redhat.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Radim,
>>>
>>> no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement
Jozef
>>> is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and
@PreDestroy
>>> lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that
are
>>> defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
>>> @PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor
binding
>>> has to defined as Target(TYPE).
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I just went through this thread and corresponding issue
WELD-1416
>>>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still
not clear
>> for me
>>>> Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current
version of
>> spec:
>>>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle
callback
>> interceptors,
>>>> an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare
interceptor
>>>> binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>>>
>>>> but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback
interceptor into
>>>> class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from
DefinitionException ?
>>>> or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined
and none
>>>> of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
>>>>
>>>> enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
>>>>
>>>> @Interceptor
>>>> @Measure
>>>> public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
>>>>
>>>> @AroundInvoke
>>>> public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception
{ ... }
>>>>
>>>> @PostConstruct
>>>> public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
>>>>
>>>> *@AroundConstruct*
>>>> Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws
Exception {...}
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @InterceptorBinding
>>>> @Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
>>>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>>>> @Inherited
>>>> public @interface Measure {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanx for clarification,
>>>> Radim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
8:14 p.m.
New subject: Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
The same way it is specified for the @Interceptors - if an interceptor
is applied to a specific method, if there are any LC callbacks defined
on that interceptor they are ignored.
-marina
On 6/20/13 1:19 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
right, I was only looking at the old interceptors spec - my bad.
Now should we try to relax this restriction, or is there some good reason for it?
Liegrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina(a)oracle.com>
> To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
> Cc: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>; Martin Kouba
<mkouba(a)redhat.com>; Radim Hanuš <radim.hanus(a)gmail.com>;
"cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2013, 22:07
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
>
> T his is what it was in CDI 1.0:
>
> "An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
> binding types that are defined as @Target(TYPE). If an
> interceptor for lifecycle callbacks declares an interceptor binding type
> that is defined @Target({TYPE, METHOD}), the container
> automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error."
>
> So the restriction (however too strict) didn't change.
>
> -marina
>
> On 6/19/13 10:22 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> +1 for relaxing this restriction again to how it was before.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
>>> To: Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com>; Radim Hanuš
> <radim.hanus(a)gmail.com>
>>> Cc: "cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 22:15
>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target
> "METHOD"
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> (I have been way too busy to comment on this, and I have the impression
>>> that my WELD bug report was too late already).
>>>
>>> Jozef closed my bug report [1] stating that the new interceptor spec
> now
>>> contains the following sentence:
>>>
>>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback
> interceptors, an
>>> interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
> binding
>>> types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>>
>>>> From what I understood this sentence went into the interceptor
> spec
>>> because of JIRA issue "Recent changes to how lifecycle event
> interceptors
>>> are bound introduce questionable behavior" [2]. What is
> interesting here
>>> is that a questionable behavior led to a strict ban instead of a
> "non
>>> portable" declaration. I know this is the wrong mailing list - but
>>> wouldn't you expect a non portable declaration in such a situation?
>>>
>>>
>>> What is more frustrating here is that the spec prohibits a feature that
>>> works with both WELD and OWB.
>>>
>>> In my case the new interceptor spec now requires two annotations if I
> want
>>> to apply the same behavior to a lifecycle callback AND a business
> method.
>>> Since the new interceptor spec is a maintenance release it should be
> easy
>>> to fix, shouldn't it? ;)
>>>
>>> Jens
>>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416
>>> [2] https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-20
>>>
>>> Am 11.06.13 15:56 schrieb "Martin Kouba" unter
>>> <mkouba(a)redhat.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Radim,
>>>>
>>>> no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement
> Jozef
>>>> is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and
> @PreDestroy
>>>> lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that
> are
>>>> defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
>>>> @PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor
> binding
>>>> has to defined as Target(TYPE).
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just went through this thread and corresponding issue
> WELD-1416
>>>>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still
> not clear
>>> for me
>>>>> Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current
> version of
>>> spec:
>>>>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle
> callback
>>> interceptors,
>>>>> an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare
> interceptor
>>>>> binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>>>>
>>>>> but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback
> interceptor into
>>>>> class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from
> DefinitionException ?
>>>>> or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined
> and none
>>>>> of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
>>>>>
>>>>> enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
>>>>>
>>>>> @Interceptor
>>>>> @Measure
>>>>> public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
>>>>>
>>>>> @AroundInvoke
>>>>> public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception
> { ... }
>>>>> @PostConstruct
>>>>> public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
>>>>>
>>>>> *@AroundConstruct*
>>>>> Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws
> Exception {...}
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> @InterceptorBinding
>>>>> @Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
>>>>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>>>>> @Inherited
>>>>> public @interface Measure {
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thanx for clarification,
>>>>> Radim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
3963
days inactive
3972
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Jens Schumann -
Jozef Hartinger -
Marina Vatkina -
Mark Struberg -
Martin Kouba -
Radim Hanuš