3:51 a.m.
Hi;
@PostActivate and @PrePassivate annotations are defined on
the EJB specification. Those annotations are not defined in the
Interceptor specification. But in CDI specification, chapter 11.1.2
specifices the using of PRE_PASSIVATE and POST_ACTIVATE interception
types.
I think that this is wrong because those annotations must
be defined on ManagedBean with passivating capable not in interceptor
class.
For example;
In TCK , it tests
Interceptor interceptor = get Some Interceptors....
interceptor.intercept(InterceptionType.PRE_PASSIVATE
or POST_ACTIVATE) is not meaningful, because interceptors may not
define PRE_PASSIVATE or POST_ACTIVATE methods.
I think that PRE_PASSIVATE and POST_ACTIVATE must be removed from InterceptionType enum.
--Gurkan
___________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Türkiye açıldı! http://yahoo.com.tr
İnternet üzerindeki en iyi içeriği Yahoo! Türkiye sizlere sunuyor!
9:23 a.m.
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 01:51 -0800, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Hi;
@PostActivate and @PrePassivate annotations are defined on the EJB
specification. Those annotations are not defined in the Interceptor
specification. But in CDI specification, chapter 11.1.2 specifices the
using of PRE_PASSIVATE and POST_ACTIVATE interception types.
The interceptor types defined in 11.1.2 are also defined, for example,
in EJB 3.1 spec chapter 4.3.4. So what is the problem?
I think that this is wrong because those annotations must be defined
on ManagedBean with passivating capable not in interceptor class.
For example;
In TCK , it tests
Interceptor interceptor = get Some Interceptors....
interceptor.intercept(InterceptionType.PRE_PASSIVATE or POST_ACTIVATE)
is not meaningful, because interceptors may not define PRE_PASSIVATE
or POST_ACTIVATE methods.
I think that PRE_PASSIVATE and POST_ACTIVATE must be removed from
InterceptionType enum.
--Gurkan
______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Türkiye açıldı!
Haber, Ekonomi, Videolar, Oyunlar hepsi Yahoo! Türkiye'de!
www.yahoo.com.tr
_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
9:26 a.m.
New subject: [jsr-299-eg] About @PostActivate and @PrePassivate
Read EJB 3.1 spec section 12.2.
"In addition to the PostConstruct and PreDestroy callback support
required by the Interceptors specificatoin, interceptors associated
with Stateful Session Beans may define PostActivate and PrePassivate
callbacks."
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi;
@PostActivate and @PrePassivate annotations are defined on the EJB
specification. Those annotations are not defined in the Interceptor
specification. But in CDI specification, chapter 11.1.2 specifices the using
of PRE_PASSIVATE and POST_ACTIVATE interception types.
I think that this is wrong because those annotations must be defined on
ManagedBean with passivating capable not in interceptor class.
For example;
In TCK , it tests
Interceptor interceptor = get Some Interceptors....
interceptor.intercept(InterceptionType.PRE_PASSIVATE or POST_ACTIVATE) is
not meaningful, because interceptors may not define PRE_PASSIVATE or
POST_ACTIVATE methods.
I think that PRE_PASSIVATE and POST_ACTIVATE must be removed from
InterceptionType enum.
--Gurkan
________________________________
Yahoo! Türkiye açıldı!
Haber, Ekonomi, Videolar, Oyunlar hepsi Yahoo! Türkiye'de!
www.yahoo.com.tr
--
Gavin King
gavin.king(a)gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org
2:46 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-299-eg] About @PostActivate and @PrePassivate
Yes, but I think that those are related with EJB specification, not in general like in
interceptor specification.
I think that PostActivate and PrePassivate may also moved to interceptor specification
because they may be used in different contexts or even in different specifications. They
are not solely related with EJB statefull session beans.
Thks;
--Gurkan
________________________________
From: Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com>
To: jsr-299-eg(a)jcp.org
Cc: weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 5:26:37 PM
Subject: Re: [jsr-299-eg] About @PostActivate and @PrePassivate
Read EJB 3.1 spec section 12.2.
"In addition to the PostConstruct and PreDestroy callback support
required by the Interceptors specificatoin, interceptors associated
with Stateful Session Beans may define PostActivate and PrePassivate
callbacks."
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi;
@PostActivate and @PrePassivate annotations are defined on the EJB
specification. Those annotations are not defined in the Interceptor
specification. But in CDI specification, chapter 11.1.2 specifices the using
of PRE_PASSIVATE and POST_ACTIVATE interception types.
I think that this is wrong because those annotations must be defined on
ManagedBean with passivating capable not in interceptor class.
For example;
In TCK , it tests
Interceptor interceptor = get Some Interceptors....
interceptor.intercept(InterceptionType.PRE_PASSIVATE or POST_ACTIVATE) is
not meaningful, because interceptors may not define PRE_PASSIVATE or
POST_ACTIVATE methods.
I think that PRE_PASSIVATE and POST_ACTIVATE must be removed from
InterceptionType enum.
--Gurkan
________________________________
Yahoo! Türkiye açıldı!
Haber, Ekonomi, Videolar, Oyunlar hepsi Yahoo! Türkiye'de!
www.yahoo.com.tr
--
Gavin King
gavin.king(a)gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org
___________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Türkiye açıldı! http://yahoo.com.tr
İnternet üzerindeki en iyi içeriği Yahoo! Türkiye sizlere sunuyor!
5478
days inactive
5478
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
David Allen -
Gavin King -
Gurkan Erdogdu