David, you should now be able to set

org.apache.webbeans.forceNoCheckedExceptions=false

somewhere in your openwebbeans.properties

LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message ----
> From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thu, August 5, 2010 11:09:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Interceptor callback signature strictness
> 
> The rational behind the change is completely ok.
> I would be happy if you  could also bring this to the EE6/7 board, because 
> this 
>
> is currently a real  sick paradigma to only allow RuntimeExceptions 
> everywhere 

> (JPA lifecycle  methods are another example) and to force wrapping the 
> wrapper 
>of 
>
> an  exceptionwrapper... until noone can see the real source of the problem 
> anymore...
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message  ----
> > From: David Blevins <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> >  Sent: Thu, August 5, 2010 8:18:55 PM
> > Subject: Interceptor callback  signature strictness
> > 
> > This is a debatable chance, but the goal  is to somehow make it possible 
> > for  
>
> >integrators to be less strict  with this particular spec rule.
> > 
> >      http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=982715
> > 
> >  Basically, we  opted not to strictly enforce this as the 
> >invocationContext.proceed() method  throws Exception so it forces  all 
> >interceptors to needlessly catch and convert  that checked  exception to a 
> >runtime exception to meet the spec   requirements:
> > 
> >          @PostConstruct
> >          public void  construct(InvocationContext context) {
> >               try {
> >                   context.proceed();
> >               } catch (Exception e) {
> >                   throw new RuntimeException(e);
> >               }
> >          }
> > 
> > The result is that if a  callback exception is thrown by  the bean, it will 
>end 
>
> >up being wrapped and  re-thrown N number of  times.
> > 
> > Not terrible, but it is a bit of bad  API.
> > 
> > Anyway, if anyone sees a better way to do this I'm open to   solutions.  I 
>just 
>
> >went with simple and direct so it would be  easily  revertible and 
> >changeable 
>if 
>
> >we wanted to do  something  different.
> > 
> > 
> > -David
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 


      

Reply via email to