That's probably a good place to send it yes. I still think an exact test case would be helpful (yes, I know you can't add to a testsuite or see what's in there).
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > Yes, I also have the gut feeling that it should work. I read through the > interceptors spec though and didn't find any explicit wording. > We should redirect this question to the EJB EG which handles the > interceptors spec, isn't? > > I remember David saying that for _some_ kind of interceptors it does not > work that way. But I don't remember exactly which one. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com> > > To: deltaspike-users@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:05 PM > > Subject: Re: @Transactional interceptor ignores derived methods > > > > Dirk, > > > > From my understanding of the specs and also from talking with Pete Muir > and > > Mark Struberg because this is an Interceptor it should work correctly. If > > it is not, chances are this is a bug in the container and should be > > reported. > > > > We'd love to have some feedback and some contributions in this area, I > just > > went through the test code and it doesn't look like we have a test with > > your scenario Dirk. Would you be able to contribute one for us, please? > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> IMO it should apply to superclasses as well. > >> > >> On 16 Oct 2012, at 14:02, Dirk Weil wrote: > >> > >> > Hi everybody, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I started a discussion at > >> https://community.jboss.org/message/764873#764873 > >> > about the seam transaction interceptor, which is not handling derived > >> > methods (see original post further down). Jason Porter pointed me to > > this > >> > mail list, stating that DeltaSpikes Transactional Interceptor behaves > > in > >> the > >> > same way. What are the reasons for this? Isn't it normally the > > case that > >> a > >> > user wants transactional behavior regardless of where the method is > >> defined > >> > (base class or derived class)? > >> > > >> > Additionally I regard it dangerous if an interceptor does not behave > >> like an > >> > ordinal interceptor (I know: Transactional intercepts every call, but > > it > >> > does different things depending on the class defining the method > >> > intercepted). > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Please give me some hint, why the implementation of Transactional was > >> done > >> > in that way. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thank you very much and best regards > >> > > >> > Dirk Weil > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Jason Porter > > http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com > > http://twitter.com/lightguardjp > > > > Software Engineer > > Open Source Advocate > > > > PGP key id: 926CCFF5 > > PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu > > > -- Jason Porter http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/lightguardjp Software Engineer Open Source Advocate PGP key id: 926CCFF5 PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
