>>>IMO, once you configured callback/.. in the deployment descriptor, it should >>>not scan the related annotations in the ejb class and its super classes
Is there any pointer that talk like above? I have looked at the Interceptor Specification that writes in "Specification of Interceptors In the Deployment Descriptor" section, Specification of Interceptors " ...... 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, regardless of whether the deployment descriptor is used to define interceptors or whether some combination of annotations and deployment descriptor elements is used." I think that -- some combination of annotations and deployment -- sentence implies combinations of interceptors from annotations and deployment descriptors. --Gurkan ----- Original Message ---- From: Ivan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 11:08:03 AM Subject: Re: Possible Bug in AnnotationDeployer # processCallbacks IMO, once you configured callback/.. in the deployment descriptor, it should not scan the related annotations in the ejb class and its super classes. Also, the spec is also ambigurous on it. Acutally, a similar issue is found in the ejb tck, and there is a thread discussion for it in the geronimo TCK maii list, will try to challenge it later. 2010/9/17 Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > Hello, > > In AnnotationDeployer # processCallbacks method, there is a check for each > callback/around....configuration, > > LifecycleCallback postConstruct = getFirst(bean.getPostConstruct()); > if(postConstruct == null){ > for (Method method : > classFinder.findAnnotatedMethods(PostConstruct.class)) { > ...... > } > } > > Firstly, code checks that callback is defined on deployment descriptor, if > it is > defined, no more annotation check is done. I think that this is not correct > behaviour because it eats interceptors that are defined on "superclasses". > > WDYT? > > I will create an issue and attach patch if my observations are correct. > > Regards; > > --Gurkan > > > -- Ivan
