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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev




_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev