I think this should work and works for my quick and dirty test.
Actually the CDI spec only covers inherited interceptor bindings (9.5.
Interceptor resolution).
Dirk, could you provide the source code of your test case so that we could
check it?
Martin
Dne 16.10.2012 21:13, Jason Porter napsal(a):
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
