[cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods

[Martin Kouba]

Dne 10.2.2016 v 13:48 John D. Ament napsal(a):
> +1 for adding this feature to the spec.
>
> -1 for adding it the way it is written currently.  This isn't to say
> that Mark's idea is bad, its just that it puts too much onus on the
> application developer to know the structure of its classes, both
> internally developed and externally provided.
>
> We should follow a pattern closer to EJB (in my opinion) where the
> non-proxyable methods are just not proxied - you won't get transactions,
> etc available.

-1

I think you cannot declare a final method on a NIV session bean (you get 
validation error) and it's easy to create a proxy for local/remote 
interface - no such methods. I also think we cannot implement this in 
Weld as we're using subclassing for client proxies. If you don't 
override (i.e. if you ignore) such a method than it will not be invoked 
upon the contextual instance but upon the clien proxy instance (subclass).

>
> John
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:37 AM Antoine Sabot-Durand
> <antoine at sabot-durand.net <mailto:antoine at sabot-durand.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     There have been a lot of discussion around CDI-527 in the last weeks:
>     https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-527
>
>     Mark proposed a PR:
>     https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/271
>
>     But we don't agree on adding this feature to the spec.
>     This vote is to decide if we should add this feature at the spec
>     level now, or not.
>     Should we vote this feature down, that won't mean it will be
>     completely dropped: it could be implemented as non portable feature
>     in both Spec or even be included as experimental feature in the spec
>     (in annexes) as describe in the PR comments
>     Vote starts now, only vote from EG members are binding (but you can
>     give your opinion if not part of the EG) and will last 72 hours.
>
>     You vote with the following values:
>     +1 : I'm favorable for adding this feature in the spec
>     -1 : I'm against adding this feature in the spec
>     0 : I don't care
>
>     Thank you for your attention and your vote.
>
>     Antoine Sabot-Durand
>     _______________________________________________
>     cdi-dev mailing list
>     cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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