[weld-dev] TCK Interceptors Classes

[Gavin King]

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