[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-420?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12916739#action_12916739
]
Valentin Mahrwald commented on ARIES-420:
-----------------------------------------
I like the sounds of it, but am not entirely sold on the potential new
lifecycle bits :)
What happens when a (mandatory) interceptor goes away during the lifetime of
the bean? Does the bean still get intercepted with the previously retrieved
interceptor, does it not get intercepted or does Blueprint start to wait for an
interceptor to come back?
Also how would a bean specific interceptor be dynamically introduced. As far as
it happens now interceptors are a by product of namespace handlers being
called. This happens only once, so it wouldn't be dynamic. Would a newly
started interceptor provider examine existing Blueprint containers?
> Leverage Whiteboard pattern for interceptors
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARIES-420
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-420
> Project: Aries
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Blueprint
> Affects Versions: 0.3
> Reporter: Joe Bohn
> Assignee: Joe Bohn
>
> Our current interceptor implementation is dependent upon registering a pojo
> for the interceptor with the component metadata. When constructing a bean
> (or service in the case of the newly introduced quiesce service interceptor)
> we retrieve the interceptor pojo(s) and use it in construction of the proxy.
> There are potential lifecycle issues with this if the bundle which introduced
> the interceptor is later removed from the system. A whiteboard pattern would
> improve lifecycle management such that the bundle dependencies can be better
> managed.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
