I don't see why it's absurd. Not even remotely. There can certainly be
two events here, one event being the destruction of the intercepted
bean, the other event being the destruction of the interceptor.
We certainly do need to establish what the specs are intending to say, however.
It seems that the EE, interceptor and managed bean specs are more or
less ambiguous here. However, common annotations strongly favors the
interpretation that the "lifecycle callback interceptor method"
mentioned by the interceptors spec is exactly the same thing as the
"@PostConstruct" or "@PreDestroy" method that the other specs talk
about. Furthermore, if there can be two methods, the specs don't
define what order they occur in. So I think that Marius has the
correct interpretation, even if it not the interpretation that was
most intuitive to me.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I think that it is absurd to have two different @PreDestroy methods
in
interceptor class.Because they have same functionality. InvocationContext
solely exists in the interceptor specification and it is very logical.
Because one wants to call next interceptor in the chain.
Will TCK tests be corrected?
Thanks;
--Gurkan
________________________________
From: Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com>
To: Marius Bogoevici <mariusb(a)redhat.com>
Cc: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com>; weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 10:43:42 PM
Subject: Re: [weld-dev] TCK Interceptors Classes
Well, the problem is that the interceptors spec is in general not very
clearly written.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hrm section 2.6 of the common annotations spec seems to confirm your
> interpretation. What's very problematic here is that the interceptors
> spec uses a different terminology to talk about the callbacks that it
> is defining. Which leads to my interpretation that it is defining a
> different, distinct set of callbacks.
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Marius Bogoevici <mariusb(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>> Gavin,
>>
>> This is very ambiguous, as the 1.1 version of the Interceptors
>> specification
>> states very clearly the signature rules for defining lifecycle
>> interceptor
>> methods on interceptor classes and target classes.
>>
>> Also, this could mean that an interceptor class can specify two different
>> @PostConstruct or @PreDestroy methods, which would refer to different
>> targets (the intercepted instance/the interceptor itself), but the
>> specification says very clearly:
>> "At most one method of a given interceptor class can be designated as an
>> around-invoke method, an around-timeout method, a post-construct method,
>> or
>> pre-destroy method."
>>
>> Also, it is not very clear to me what would be the benefit of a separate
>> @PostConstruct/@PreDestroy method for the interceptor itself, as
>> interceptor
>> lifecycles are virtually the same as for the target objects.
>>
>> Marius
>>
>>
>>
>> Gavin King wrote:
>>
>> Check section 5.2.5 of the EE spec. It appears to confirm my
>> understanding of this stuff.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> At least, that's my understanding of how interceptors are treated in
>> EE6. You would have to check with Roberto and Ken for an absolutely
>> definitive answer.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Right, but the interceptor itself has a lifecycle. It's a kind of
>> managed bean. So it can have the callbacks that all managed beans can
>> have.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are two differents scenario for lifecycle callbacks in interceptors
>> specification
>>
>> 1* Used in interceptor class with InvocationContext parameter
>> @PreDestroy
>> public void blabla(InvocationContext){}
>> 2* Used in bean class without any parameter
>> @PreDestroy
>> public void blabla(){}
>>
>> In TCK, @PreDestroy is used in interceptor class. So it may take
>> InvocationContext.
>>
>> --Gurkan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com>
>> To: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com>
>> Cc: weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 9:10:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [weld-dev] TCK Interceptors Classes
>>
>> Hrm, I think there are two kinds of @PreDestroy methods for an
>> interceptor:
>>
>> @PreDestroy void foo(InvocationContext) { .. } -> the intercepted
>> bean is being destroyed
>> @PreDestroy void foo() { .. } -> the interceptor itself is being
>> destroyed
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi;
>>
>> Some interceptors classes in the TCK test suites implement @PreDestroy
>> methods. AFAIK, interceptors specification says that methods with
>> @PreDestroy in interceptor class must take InvocationContext parameter.
>> But
>> in TCK, those methods do not take InvocationContext parameter
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.context.dependent.TransactionalInterceptor
>>
>> @PreDestroy public void destroy()
>> {
>> destroyed = true;
>> }
>>
>> Is it correct?
>>
>> --Gurkan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> weld-dev mailing list
>> weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king(a)gmail.com
>>
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>>
http://hibernate.org
>>
http://seamframework.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king(a)gmail.com
>>
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>>
http://hibernate.org
>>
http://seamframework.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king(a)gmail.com
>>
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>>
http://hibernate.org
>>
http://seamframework.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gavin King
> gavin.king(a)gmail.com
>
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>
http://hibernate.org
>
http://seamframework.org
>
--
Gavin King
gavin.king(a)gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org