I don't see a particular issue with the test. The rules on what business method
invocations are and aren't should make it clear that invocations on the instance
acquired via getTarget() are intercepted, or, for that matter, decorated. Those are *not*
business method invocations (in the same way as calls to 'this' are not business
method invocations).
Weld implements interception/decoration via subclassing and observes this exact rule
(invocations on this and instances acquired by getTarget() are not
intercepted/decorated).
Also, this has been previously discussed here (a couple of links from an older weld-dev
thread)
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/2010-May/002517.html
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/2010-May/002519.html
On 2011-01-06, at 12:34 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
Jozef Hartinger wrote:
> Could you file a CDITCK issue and assign it to me? Thanks.
>
Thanks Jozef,
It's at
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-203.
I'm pretty sure I don't have permission to assign you tasks, though. :)
-- Scott
> On 01/06/2011 03:24 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> This test has a implementation-dependency on how interception is
>> implemented (requires proxy implementation), but the proxy
>> implementation is not mandated by the spec (and the EJB spec has always
>> allowed both implementation methods.)
>>
>> The test calls SimpleBean.getId(), which is intercepted by Interceptor1.
>>
>> Interceptor1's aroundInvoke calls target.getId(), which is a circular
>> reference for extension and only works for proxy-based interception:
>>
>> class SimpleBean {
>> @Interceptors(Interceptor1.class)
>> public int getId()
>> {
>> return id;
>> }
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> class Interceptor1 {
>> @AroundInvoke
>> public Object aroundInvoke(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception
>> {
>> SimpleBean target = (SimpleBean) ctx.getTarget();
>> int id1 = target.getId();
>> ...
>> }
>> }
>>
>> The only change needed to the test is to create a SimpleBean.getBareId()
>> which is not an intercepted method.
>>
>> (Or, if the spec is re-interpreted to require a proxy implementation,
>> there should be an explicit test for it, not an implicit dependency like
>> this test.)
>>
>> -- Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> weld-dev mailing list
>> weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev