[cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
Marina Vatkina
marina.vatkina at oracle.com
Thu Jun 20 14:14:03 EDT 2013
The same way it is specified for the @Interceptors - if an interceptor
is applied to a specific method, if there are any LC callbacks defined
on that interceptor they are ignored.
-marina
On 6/20/13 1:19 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> right, I was only looking at the old interceptors spec - my bad.
>
> Now should we try to relax this restriction, or is there some good reason for it?
>
>
> Liegrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina at oracle.com>
>> To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
>> Cc: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann at openknowledge.de>; Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com>; Radim Hanuš <radim.hanus at gmail.com>; "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2013, 22:07
>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target "METHOD"
>>
>> T his is what it was in CDI 1.0:
>>
>> "An interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
>> binding types that are defined as @Target(TYPE). If an
>> interceptor for lifecycle callbacks declares an interceptor binding type
>> that is defined @Target({TYPE, METHOD}), the container
>> automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error."
>>
>> So the restriction (however too strict) didn't change.
>>
>> -marina
>>
>> On 6/19/13 10:22 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> +1 for relaxing this restriction again to how it was before.
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann at openknowledge.de>
>>>> To: Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com>; Radim Hanuš
>> <radim.hanus at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 22:15
>>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Lifecycle Callback Interceptor and @Target
>> "METHOD"
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> (I have been way too busy to comment on this, and I have the impression
>>>> that my WELD bug report was too late already).
>>>>
>>>> Jozef closed my bug report [1] stating that the new interceptor spec
>> now
>>>> contains the following sentence:
>>>>
>>>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle callback
>> interceptors, an
>>>> interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor
>> binding
>>>> types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>>>
>>>>> From what I understood this sentence went into the interceptor
>> spec
>>>> because of JIRA issue "Recent changes to how lifecycle event
>> interceptors
>>>> are bound introduce questionable behavior" [2]. What is
>> interesting here
>>>> is that a questionable behavior led to a strict ban instead of a
>> "non
>>>> portable" declaration. I know this is the wrong mailing list - but
>>>> wouldn't you expect a non portable declaration in such a situation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is more frustrating here is that the spec prohibits a feature that
>>>> works with both WELD and OWB.
>>>>
>>>> In my case the new interceptor spec now requires two annotations if I
>> want
>>>> to apply the same behavior to a lifecycle callback AND a business
>> method.
>>>> Since the new interceptor spec is a maintenance release it should be
>> easy
>>>> to fix, shouldn't it? ;)
>>>>
>>>> Jens
>>>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416
>>>> [2] https://java.net/jira/browse/INTERCEPTORS_SPEC-20
>>>>
>>>> Am 11.06.13 15:56 schrieb "Martin Kouba" unter
>>>> <mkouba at redhat.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Radim,
>>>>>
>>>>> no, adding @AroundConstruct callback does not help. The statement
>> Jozef
>>>>> is referencing means: An interceptor for @PostConstruct and
>> @PreDestroy
>>>>> lifecycle callbacks may only declare interceptor binding types that
>> are
>>>>> defined as Target(TYPE). The PerformanceInterceptor declares
>>>>> @PostConstruct callback and that's why the @Measure interceptor
>> binding
>>>>> has to defined as Target(TYPE).
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> Dne 11.6.2013 14:01, Radim Hanuš napsal(a):
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just went through this thread and corresponding issue
>> WELD-1416
>>>>>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1416> and still
>> not clear
>>>> for me
>>>>>> Josef Hartinger referenced a statement from the current
>> version of
>>>> spec:
>>>>>> "With the exception of AroundConstruct lifecycle
>> callback
>>>> interceptors,
>>>>>> an interceptor for lifecycle callbacks may only declare
>> interceptor
>>>>>> binding types that are defined as Target(TYPE)."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but does it mean that adding @AroundConstruct callback
>> interceptor into
>>>>>> class PerformanceInterceptor prevents from
>> DefinitionException ?
>>>>>> or in such case there should be only @AroundConstruct defined
>> and none
>>>>>> of both @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> enhanced sample of Jens Schumann:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Interceptor
>>>>>> @Measure
>>>>>> public class PerformanceInterceptor implements Serializable {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @AroundInvoke
>>>>>> public Object measure(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception
>> { ... }
>>>>>> @PostConstruct
>>>>>> public void measureCreate(InvocationContext ctx) { ... }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *@AroundConstruct*
>>>>>> Object onAroundConstruct(InvocationContext ctx) throws
>> Exception {...}
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @InterceptorBinding
>>>>>> @Target({*ElementType.METHOD*, ElementType.TYPE})
>>>>>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>>>>>> @Inherited
>>>>>> public @interface Measure {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanx for clarification,
>>>>>> Radim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
More information about the cdi-dev
mailing list