[weld-dev] TCK Interceptors Classes

Tue Dec 1 00:50:36 EST 2009

I don't see why it's absurd. Not even remotely. There can certainly be
two events here, one event being the destruction of the intercepted
bean, the other event being the destruction of the interceptor.

We certainly do need to establish what the specs are intending to say, however.

It seems that the EE, interceptor and managed bean specs are more or
less ambiguous here. However, common annotations strongly favors the
interpretation that the "lifecycle callback interceptor method"
mentioned by the interceptors spec is exactly the same thing as the
"@PostConstruct" or "@PreDestroy" method that the other specs talk
about. Furthermore, if there can be two methods, the specs don't
define what order they occur in. So I think that Marius has the
correct interpretation, even if it not the interpretation that was
most intuitive to me.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think that it is absurd to have two different @PreDestroy methods in
> interceptor class.Because they have same functionality. InvocationContext
> solely exists in the interceptor specification and it is very logical.
> Because one wants to call next interceptor in the chain.
>
> Will TCK tests be corrected?
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com>
> To: Marius Bogoevici <mariusb at redhat.com>
> Cc: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>; weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 10:43:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [weld-dev] TCK Interceptors Classes
>
> Well, the problem is that the interceptors spec is in general not very
> clearly written.
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hrm section 2.6 of the common annotations spec seems to confirm your
>> interpretation. What's very problematic here is that the interceptors
>> spec uses a different terminology to talk about the callbacks that it
>> is defining. Which leads to my interpretation that it is defining a
>> different, distinct set of callbacks.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Marius Bogoevici <mariusb at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Gavin,
>>>
>>> This is very ambiguous, as the 1.1 version of the Interceptors
>>> specification
>>> states very clearly the signature rules for defining lifecycle
>>> interceptor
>>> methods on interceptor classes and target classes.
>>>
>>> Also, this could mean that an interceptor class can specify two different
>>> @PostConstruct or @PreDestroy methods, which would refer to different
>>> targets (the intercepted instance/the interceptor itself), but the
>>> specification says very clearly:
>>> "At most one method of a given interceptor class can be designated as an
>>> around-invoke method, an around-timeout method, a post-construct method,
>>> or
>>> pre-destroy method."
>>>
>>> Also, it is not very clear to me what would be the benefit of a separate
>>> @PostConstruct/@PreDestroy method for the interceptor itself, as
>>> interceptor
>>> lifecycles are virtually the same as for the target objects.
>>>
>>> Marius
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gavin King wrote:
>>>
>>> Check section 5.2.5 of the EE spec. It appears to confirm my
>>> understanding of this stuff.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> At least, that's my understanding of how interceptors are treated in
>>> EE6. You would have to check with Roberto and Ken for an absolutely
>>> definitive answer.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but the interceptor itself has a lifecycle. It's a kind of
>>> managed bean. So it can have the callbacks that all managed beans can
>>> have.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There are two differents scenario for lifecycle callbacks in interceptors
>>> specification
>>>
>>> 1* Used in interceptor class with InvocationContext parameter
>>>      @PreDestroy
>>>      public void blabla(InvocationContext){}
>>> 2* Used in bean class without any parameter
>>>      @PreDestroy
>>>      public void blabla(){}
>>>
>>> In TCK, @PreDestroy is used in interceptor class. So it may take
>>> InvocationContext.
>>>
>>> --Gurkan
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com>
>>> To: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>
>>> Cc: weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 9:10:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [weld-dev] TCK Interceptors Classes
>>>
>>> Hrm, I think there are two kinds of @PreDestroy methods for an
>>> interceptor:
>>>
>>> @PreDestroy void foo(InvocationContext) { .. }  -> the intercepted
>>> bean is being destroyed
>>> @PreDestroy void foo() { .. }  -> the interceptor itself is being
>>> destroyed
>>>
>>> Right?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi;
>>>
>>> Some interceptors classes in the TCK test suites implement @PreDestroy
>>> methods. AFAIK, interceptors specification says that methods with
>>> @PreDestroy in interceptor class must take InvocationContext parameter.
>>> But
>>> in TCK, those methods do not take InvocationContext parameter
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.context.dependent.TransactionalInterceptor
>>>
>>> @PreDestroy public void destroy()
>>>    {
>>>       destroyed = true;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> Is it correct?
>>>
>>> --Gurkan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> weld-dev mailing list
>>> weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gavin King
>>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>>> http://hibernate.org
>>> http://seamframework.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gavin King
>>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>>> http://hibernate.org
>>> http://seamframework.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gavin King
>>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>>> http://hibernate.org
>>> http://seamframework.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>> http://hibernate.org
>> http://seamframework.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gavin King
> gavin.king at gmail.com
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
> http://hibernate.org
> http://seamframework.org
>
>

-- 
Gavin King
gavin.king at gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org