Hi Jeremy,
Priority annotation itself is part of the common annotations spec. So it
was kept very generic.
thanks,
-marina
On 2/6/13 8:49 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> Hi Marina,
>
> One minor comment/question. Rather than using integer-based priority
> ranges, did you consider using strict priority types and weight? For
> example, @Priority(type=APPLICATION, weight=10). An integral value
> with proposed ranges is simpler and very flexible, but using a
> specific type would make the intent of the interceptor/interception
> point more concrete.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
> From: Jeremy Bauer/Rochester/IBM_at_IBMUS
> To: marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com,
> Cc: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net
> Date: 02/04/2013 10:18 AM
> Subject: [ejb-spec users] [jsr345-experts] Re: Re: Interceptors spec
> 1.2 draft is available for review
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thanks, Marina.
>
> It certainly was a lot of work, which is even more evident from the
> diff! Thank you for posting. It is helpful. I'll post comments soon.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
> From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>
> To: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net,
> Date: 02/01/2013 08:31 PM
> Subject: [ejb-spec users] [jsr345-experts] Re: Interceptors spec 1.2
> draft is available for review
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I uploaded the file with diffs if it's of any help:
> _http://java.net/projects/interceptors-spec/downloads/download/interceptor-1-2-dr1-diff.pdf_
>
> -marina
>
> On 2/1/13 1:31 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> It was a lot of work ;). I can create a diff from the original+ (i.e.
> the version that Linda created in the framemaker from 1.1), but it
> will also show a lot of changes, not the changes for a specific sentence.
>
> -marina
>
> On 2/1/13 1:16 PM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> Hi Marina,
>
> The change bars cover nearly the entire document, making it difficult
> to target the updated sections. If possible, can you provide a
> document with more accurate change bars?
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
> From: Marina Vatkina _<marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>_
> <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>
> To: _jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net_
> <mailto:jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net>, Pete Muir
> _<pmuir_at_redhat.com>_ <mailto:pmuir_at_redhat.com>,
> Date: 01/29/2013 04:07 PM
> Subject: [jsr345-experts] Interceptors spec 1.2 draft is available for
> review
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> After a lot of work by Linda, me, and Pete, we have the Interceptors
> spec 1.2 draft for review: _
> __http://java.net/projects/interceptors-spec/downloads/download/interceptor-1-2-dr1.pdf_
>
> What's there:
> Editorial cleanup and conversion to standard template.
> Assigned chapter numbers to sections and rearranged various sections and
> examples for better flow.
> Clarified statement regarding transaction context of lifecycle callback
> methods
> Added a note on a timeout method that is also a business method and
> around-timeout and around-invoke interceptors
> Added Chapter 1 (Overview)
> Added Chapter 3, derived from Chapter 9 of the CDI specification.
> Removed deployment descriptors definitions (general notes about
> possibility of DDs are there)
> Added examples with interceptor bindings to common sections.
> Added standard Priority ranges
>
> What's not there:
> @AroundConstruct interceptor
> Notes on "throws Exception" clauses in the around-xxx method signatures
> Perfect CDI alignment - the text (and fonts) might be not fully aligned.
>
> Please review ASAP.
>
> Pete, please forward to the CDI EG.
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
>
>
>