[webbeans-dev] Re: Stereotype inheritance proposal

I've got feedback from a number of people that stereotype inheritance should be supported, and I agree with this feedback. I think we should just do it in the simplest possible way and say simply that stereotype declarations are transitive, and meta-stereotypes are inherited by the web bean. Therefore: 1. the sets of interceptor binding types are unioned 2. any conflicts between default scope/deployment type defined by a stereotype and its meta-stereotypes must be resolved by explicit declaration on the web bean 3. all restrictions apply cumulatively And I've written this into section 2.7.1.5 of the attached spec draft. Questions: ======== Does anybody think that the default scope/deployment type declared directly by a stereotype should *override* the default scopes/deployment types declared by its meta-stereotypes? This rule makes a lot of sense, but it kinda makes things a little more complex. For example: @RequestScoped @Stereotype public @interface Foo {} @SessionScoped @Foo @Stereotype public @interface Bar {} Should we force a web bean that declares @Bar to explicitly specify a scope, or is it better to let @SessionScoped on Bar override @RequestScoped on Foo. Another thing I've just noticed, that applies to interceptor bindings inherited by both stereotypes and other interceptor binding types, is that you could potentially have a web bean with multiple "instances" of the same interceptor binding type - the same type, but different member values. I think we should say that this is a DefinitionException. For example: @Transactional(requiresNew=false) @Stereotype public @interface Foo {} @Transactional(requiresNew=true) @Stereotype public @interface Foo {} @Foo @Bar public class X {} Then X has both @Transactional(requiresNew=false) and @Transactional(requiresNew=true). -- Gavin King gavin.king(a)gmail.com http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin http://hibernate.org http://seamframework.org