Marina,
I think eventually it does make sense for Interceptors to be a separate
JSR/EG, but I don't see it as a high priority issue at the moment. Maybe
Pete, et al feel differently and it would make things easier from a CDI
EG perspective?
Cheers,
Reza
On 7/7/2011 6:04 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Managed bean spec says "A Managed Bean may use interceptors as defined
> in the Interceptor specification.". Isn't it enough? If anybody feels
> that the Interceptors spec should be moved out of the EJB JSR, it
> needs to be addressed at the Platform EG.
>
> -marina
>
> Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>> Agree that lifecycle callback methods should be exposed as business
>> methods. But Shouldn't this (@PostConstruct & @PreDestroy) be defined
>> in the ManagedBean spec ?
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 02:10, Marina Vatkina
>> <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Should we add a word of caution for the lifecycle callback methods
>> to be exposed as business methods?
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>>
>> Carlo de Wolf wrote:
>>
>> (page 86)
>>
>> Yes. The lifecycle annotation is only an indicator which
>> method must be called by the container at the appropriate
>> event. The method can equally be called via a view.
>>
>> Carlo
>>
>> On 07/06/2011 01:02 AM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>
>> Dear Experts,
>>
>> Before we go any further on the discussions of the spec
>> improvements, we need to close on several issues with the
>> current version:
>>
>> 1. Vote on the optionality of the Entity Beans and JAX-RPC
>> based Web Service Endpoints (and the split of the spec
>> into 2 parts, but the split is the secondary issue). I
>> have only 3 votes (positive) so far.
>>
>> 2. Close on the items marked by Linda as XXX in the drafts.
>>
>> 3. Define *deterministic* rules in the EJB spec about EJB
>> Lite vs. EJB Full list of features in regards to the EJB
>> support in a Web Profile container. In addition to be very
>> flexible (contrary to the regular Java EE approach, and
>> the expectations of the EJB TCK), the current wording in
>> the spec does not make it clear a) what is expected and
>> what is not in the Web Profile, and b) if we keep it
>> flexible, how a user (at deployment and/or runtime) can
>> determine if a specific feature outside EJB Lite is
>> available/supported.
>>
>> The same applies to the Embeddable EJB Container.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> -marina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>
>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | Blog
>> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> | LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG
>> <http://www.parisjug.org>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3749 - Release Date: 07/07/11
>
>