I think that relying on annotation applied to the implementers is incorrect design because only service interface annotation should be considered.
If service has a method with "REQUIRE" transactional attribute and "ADMIN" authorization role neither of implementers of the interface can change it.
On 26/04/05, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder if we can dynamically add annotations to runtime-generated classes
(like the proxy classes)?
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 11:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Java 5 annotations and Hivemind interceptors
Hello,
I've discovered what I consider a potential problem with the
ServiceInterceptorFactory. Basically, I've been building a declarative
security system for my application. To reduce the amount of
configuration data, I thought I'd use Java 5 annotations to declare the
security semantics of service methods. What I discovered, however, is
there is no way to get at the core service implementation. Since my
transaction interceptor uses Java proxies and it's applied before the
security interceptor, I can no longer access the annotations on the
implementation class.
So, how should I go about handling this? I guess I can declare the
annotations on the service interface, but I can certainly imagine
situations where the annotation is truly an implementation detail and
shouldn't be exposed to the callers of the service. And I'd guess this
will become more of an issue as people start using annotations more.
Thanks,
--Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Best regards,
Renat Zubairov
