+1 If this is about MDBs or @Scheduled methods then it has not much to do with CDI but rather with the EJB container.
I also think it should work as per the spec. You might need to file a PMR for this. LieGrue, strub On Sunday, 9 November 2014, 6:50, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Ok >This is the responsability of the ejb container, not cdi. IIRC it should work >as well. > >Le 9 nov. 2014 00:41, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <[email protected]> a écrit : > >Hi Mark >>We have the beans.xml in place, will check the private and exception on >>monday when Im back to office. >>Regards >>Lars-Fredrik >>On Nov 8, 2014 11:13 PM, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Lars-Fredrik! >>> >>> @AroundInvoke is indeed supported in CDI-1.0 and thus also in WAS. I'm >>> using it heavily at some customers . Do you have a beans.xml in WEB-INF? >>> WAS needs this (not required by the spec, but anyway). >>> Probably WAS has a problem with private around-invoke methods. You might >>> also check if your method declares 'throws Exception'. This is required by >>> the spec ans WAS is pretty picky about it. >>> >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, 8 November 2014, 17:42, Romain Manni-Bucau >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> >Just a doubt: you asked about around invoke but spoke about timeout. >>> >Timeout should be supported IIRC but we did it after several releases ie >>> >not 1.0. >>> >Le 8 nov. 2014 15:02, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <[email protected]> a écrit >>> >: >>> > >>> >Thanks Romain.... then I will submit a bugreport.... >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>/Fredrik >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>> >><[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>Iirc aroundinvoke was supported since the beginning >>> >>>Le 8 nov. 2014 14:05, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <[email protected]> a >>> >>>écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> @Romain >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>I know WAS uses OWB and, as you say, some obsolete version. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>I was just curios in what CDI and OWB version the support was added. If >>> >>>>I try to bug report something that is not in Java EE 6 I will get the >>> >>>>cold hand I guess :) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>> >>>><[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>It is in tomee and by spec. No idea in WAS which has obsolete versions >>> >>>>>Le 8 nov. 2014 13:47, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <[email protected]> a >>> >>>>>écrit : >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>Hi! >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>As I can see JSR318 contains two specifications, EJB 3.1 >>> >>>>>>Specification and Interceptors 1.1 (and later on Interceptors 1.2 MR) >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>EJB 3.1 as well as Interceptors 1.1 are included in Java EE6. >>> >>>>>>Interceptors 1.2 is included in Javav EE7. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>When I look in Inteceptors Specification 1.1 I find no references to >>> >>>>>>a specific CDI version or to CDI at all. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>When I look in Interceptors Specification 1.2 I see the following: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>1.2 Relationship to Other Specifications >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>"...and the CDI specification requires support for the chapters 2,3 >>> >>>>>>and 5 (excluding 5.5)." >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>CDI specification here points to "JSR346 - Context and Dependency >>> >>>>>>Injection for the Java EE Platform 1.1 (CDI specification)" >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>2.7 Timeout Method Inteceptors >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>"Interceptor methods that interpose on timeout methods are denoted by >>> >>>>>>the AroundTimeout annotation." >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>"Around-timeout methods can have public, private, protected or >>> >>>>>>package level access. An around-timeout method must not be declared >>> >>>>>>as abstract, final or static." >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>Question: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>1) From the Interceptors 1.2 I understand that @AroundInvoke is okay >>> >>>>>>to use with a CDI interceptor using CDI 1.1, correct? >>> >>>>>>2) What about CDI 1.0 (JSR 299) and Interceptors 1.1, is >>> >>>>>>@AroundInvoke also okay with CDI 1.0? I find no information on that? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>The reason I ask is that I do not get it to work with WebSphere 8.5.5 >>> >>>>>>that uses OWB (with a version that atleast should support CDI 1.0). >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>Regards >>> >>>>>>Lars-Fredrik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>-- >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: >>> >>>>>>The information contained in this electronic message and any >>> >>>>>>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the >>> >>>>>>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If >>> >>>>>>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik >>> >>>>>>Smedberg >>> >>>>>>immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of this >>> >>>>>>message and any attachments. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>-- >>> >>>> >>> >>>>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards >>> >>>> >>> >>>>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg >>> >>>> >>> >>>>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: >>> >>>>The information contained in this electronic message and any >>> >>>>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the >>> >>>>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If >>> >>>>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg >>> >>>>immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of this >>> >>>>message and any attachments. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>-- >>> >> >>> >>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards >>> >> >>> >>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg >>> >> >>> >>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: >>> >>The information contained in this electronic message and any >>> >>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the >>> >>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If >>> >>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg >>> >>immediately at [email protected], and destroy all copies of this >>> >>message and any attachments. >>> > >>> > >> > >
