Still no feedback from the EG so far. Jason, could you please add a small unit test to the @Transactional so we can test this against our various CDI implementations?
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com> > To: deltaspike-users@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:13 PM > Subject: Re: @Transactional interceptor ignores derived methods > >T hat'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 >
