could you also attach your sample?

Thanks;




________________________________
From: Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 9:47:44 PM
Subject: Re: Interception stack during MethodExpression evaluation?

Well, actually I tried this only using @NormalScope beans like
ConversationScoped and RequestScoped. Haven't tested @Dependent yet.

I will file a bug for this.

br, Sven


2009/11/14 Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]>

>
> FYI : Currently, we do not provide interceptions for @Dependent scoped
> beans. So, if your controller is a dependent scoped bean, OWB does not
> intercept.(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-151)
>
> Did you try to configure controller with other scopes than @Dependent? If
> you tried, then it is weird and definitely a bug!
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 9:21:50 PM
> Subject: Interception stack during MethodExpression evaluation?
>
> Good evening,
>
> I am totally puzzled in this case: I have a JSF controller bean, which
> should be intercepted by in simple interceptor. If I invoke a method of
> this
> controller via EL using a MethodExpression bound to a commandButton, the
> controller bean is called without interception stack (meaning: the
> interceptor is not called). If I invoke the same method from within another
> controller bean programmatically, the interception stack is in place and
> the
> interceptor is called.
>
> I have verified this using multiple different scoped controller beans and
> it's every time the same. Feels like a bug. Can someone verify this?
>
> I am using a nightly build and spec conform beans.xml notation like:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
>    xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee
> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/beans_1_0.xsd";>
>    <interceptors>
>        <class>xxx.InterceptorType</class>
>    </interceptors>
> </beans>
>
>
> br, Sven
>
>
>
>
>



      

Reply via email to