small update. All our internal tests passed already. I did also successfully run our real world app.
I will fire up the standalone TCK tomorrow to check how bad it is and check the changes in if they are reasonably ok. LieGrue, strub PS: I came across a few code parts where I absolutely wonder why this never crashed ;) --- Mark Struberg <[email protected]> schrieb am Di, 23.3.2010: > Von: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: attention - danger zone ;) > An: [email protected] > Datum: Dienstag, 23. März, 2010 23:55 Uhr > hi sven! > > yes and no :) > > ad 1.) yes, I aim for separating those concerns into 2 > different MethodHandlers which will get manifested in 2 > proxy objects. > > ad 2.) the logic is really simple: If a bean defines > interceptors or decorators, we create a contextual instance > which includes this functionality. We do this by creating a > proxy and 1:1 delegating to exactly the one contextual > instance it serves. So for each contextual instance which > needs to get intercepted/decorated, we create a single proxy > to serve this purpose > > For all @NormalScoped beans, I'll create a > NormalScopedBeanProxy which only serves to resolve the > correct contextual instance (with any interception already > applied) and delegates all method invocations to this > underlying contextual instance. > > So while the InterceptorProxy instance is 1:1 bound to the > contextual instance, the NormalScopedBeanProxy is 1:1 bound > to the injection point. But there is no 1:1 relation between > those 2 proxies but a n:m. And that is what made the old > code so complicated to read, because all the resolving > needed to switch dynamically. > > ad 3.) Yes, if the context is a passivating one, then the > contextual instance (including all it's > interceptors/decorators) will get serialized to that > passivation storage. This is now exactly as it is defined in > the spec! > > ad 4.) exactly! > > LieGrue, > strub > > > --- Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> > schrieb am Di, 23.3.2010: > > > Von: Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: attention - danger zone ;) > > An: [email protected] > > Datum: Dienstag, 23. März, 2010 23:17 Uhr > > Hi Mark, > > > > just for my personal understanding: The proposed > changes > > imply: > > > > 1. Introducing two seperate MethodHandler. One for > > resolving NormalScope > > beans to the actual instance. Another one for applying > the > > interception/decoration stack. > > > > 2. As only one MethodHandler can be attached to proxy > class > > instances, for > > dependent scoped beans the interception/decoration > handler > > is attached. For > > normal scope instances the resolving handler is > attached. > > > > 3. The interception/decoration MethodHandler including > the > > actual > > interceptor/decorator instances is part of the bean > state > > (?), so it is > > serialized to a normal scope along with the bean > instance. > > > > 4. This implies the scope receives not the concrete > bean > > instance, but > > rather the proxy class instance with attached > > MethodHandler, which in turn > > contains of the bean instance and > interceptor/decorator > > instances? > > > > > > br, Sven > > > > > > 2010/3/23 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > > > The current NormalScopedBeanInterceptorHandler is > a > > subclass of the > > > InterceptorHandler. > > > > > > But while the InterceptorHandler is fixed 1:1 to > a > > contextual instance, the > > > proxy we need to handle the NormalScoped > behaviour is > > different for each and > > > every injection point. There is currently a lot > code > > to work around this > > > logical separation, but I consider this to be > what it > > is - a workaround. See > > > my comments on OWB-329. Maybe I was not clear > enough > > and should elaborate > > > further? > > > > > > txs and LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > schrieb am Di, 23.3.2010: > > > > > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > > > Betreff: Re: attention - danger zone ;) > > > > An: [email protected] > > > > Datum: Dienstag, 23. März, 2010 19:51 Uhr > > > > >>>I'm currently refactoring > > > > the decorator / interceptor stuff by > > > > splitting the Interceptor and Decorator > > MethodHandlers from > > > > the > > > > >>>NormalScopedBeanMethodHandler. > > > > Why? Interceptor/Decorator is handled in > the > > abstract class > > > > InterceptorHandler not in > > NormalScopedBeanMethodHandler. > > > > > > > > What is the problem with current approach? > > Currently > > > > InterceptorHandler performs > interceptor/decorator > > stack for > > > > bean just one case. > > > > > > > > Thanks; > > > > > > > > --Gurkan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 8:09:49 PM > > > > Subject: attention - danger zone ;) > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > I'm currently refactoring the decorator / > > interceptor stuff > > > > by splitting the Interceptor and Decorator > > MethodHandlers > > > > from the NormalScopedBeanMethodHandler. > > > > > > > > This will also allow implementing those > parts as > > pure > > > > subclasses later. > > > > > > > > I'm back to only 2 broken tests and my real > world > > app is > > > > running again. > > > > > > > > Please do not checkin big changes into SVN > in > > > > webbeans-impl. > > > > > > > > txs and LieGrue, > > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt > über > > einen > > > > herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > > > Yahoo! Türkiye açıldı! http://yahoo.com.tr > > > > İnternet üzerindeki en iyi içeriği > Yahoo! > > Türkiye > > > > sizlere sunuyor! > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über > einen > > herausragenden Schutz > > > gegen Massenmails. > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen > herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. > http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com
