Marina,
Even if it does break some code, I don't think it'll be a significant
enough number. This is a change well worth making I think.
Cheers,
Reza
On 9/8/2011 3:09 AM, Florent BENOIT wrote:
> As said Reza, I don't think that it was discussed on the EJB 3.1 EG
> But I think that reverse order should be applied and this shouldn't
> break code
>
> Florent
>
> On 09/07/2011 03:09 AM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>> Dear Experts,
>>
>> (Back from vacation and catching up)
>>
>> So far I got two (unfortunately) opposite replies. Let's try one more
>> time... May be some of you who was on the EG that discussed the
>> original proposal, have any recollection (or any saved emails) of
>> what and why had been decided?
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>> Bill Shannon asked me to get the EJB EG opinion on this subject. Had
>>> this been discussed in 3.1 EG?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -marina
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/16/2011 2:05 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>>>> Section EE.5.2.5 of the EE 6 platform spec (page 70) says that both
>>>> @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy methods are called in class hierarchy
>>>> order, with superclass methods called before subclass methods. This
>>>> makes sense for @PostConstruct, but for @PreDestroy it seems like it
>>>> would make more sense to call them in reverse order, so that the
>>>> subclass would be done using any resources of the superclass before
>>>> the superclass freed them.
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone think of any reason that @PreDestroy should be called in
>>>> the same order as @PostConstruct?
>>>>
>>>> If we decided the currently specified behavior is wrong, I'm worried
>>>> about the compatibility impact of changing it. What do *you* think
>>>> the compatibility impact would be? How many programs would break?
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3883 - Release Date: 09/07/11
>
>