[cdi-dev] [Vote] @Priority value order on ordered events

[Mark Struberg]

-0.2.  @Priority sorting order is already confusing.
Thus one has to read about how it's meant to be anyway.

But I agree with the argument that I'd expect observers to get invoked in the order of the priority numbers. Means 1 before 2. Feels much more natural to me.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 08.12.2016 um 12:51 schrieb Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com>:
> 
> +1
> 
> The sentence "Observers with smaller priority values are called first." 
> sounds weird. If it were @Order annotation, the sentence would be fine 
> and natural. But right now, we say that observers with highest priority 
> are notified last.
> 
> By the way, interceptors are different beasts - an interceptor with the 
> highest priority is "closest" to the bean method invocation, i.e. it's 
> the last one which can react BEFORE the bean method is invoked and the 
> first one which can react AFTER the bean invocation returns (and process 
> the result).
> 
> Martin
> 
> Dne 8.12.2016 v 11:45 Matej Novotny napsal(a):
>> +0
>> 
>> Don't really care. Since it's not unified across CDI, having it one way or the other doesn't really make difference to me.
>> 
>> Matej
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Antoine Sabot-Durand" <antoine at sabot-durand.net>
>>> To: "CDI Java EE Specification" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 11:29:11 AM
>>> Subject: [cdi-dev] [Vote] @Priority value order on ordered events
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> As already explained in a previous mail [1], some of us would like change the
>>> current order of events to make the highest @Priority value first and the
>>> lowest last. This change would be an alinement on how @Alternative work
>>> (highest value being the first candidate).
>>> 
>>> If you agree to the change (highest to lowest) vote +1, if you disagree -1
>>> and don't care 0. If you want to discuss thread is always open on [1] but
>>> time is running out.
>>> 
>>> Vote will end Monday at 12:00 pm CET.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your participation.
>>> 
>>> Antoine
>>> 
>>> [1] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2016-November/009330.html
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>> 
>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code
>>> under the Apache License, Version 2
>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual
>>> property rights inherent in such information.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> 
>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Martin Kouba
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Czech Republic
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> 
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.