Hi all,
I read the spec, nothing much to say and waiting for the update with
around-construct. But one point that bothers me : after reading the
document I get confused on which component model allows which kind of
interceptors. So I have to re-read the spec. Wouldn't it be easier to have
a table that would look like this :
Component | Around-invoke | Around-timeout | Around-construct | Life cycle
| Interceptor binding | Default interceptor | Ordering
----------+---------------+----------------+------------------+------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------
EJB | Y | Y | Y | Y
| | |
CDI Bean | Y | N | Y | Y
| | |
Servlet | N | N | N | N
| | |
JAX-WS | ... | ... | ... | ...
| | |
JAX-RS | ... | ... | ... | ...
| | |
... | ... | ... | ... | ...
| | |
The specification talks mainly about CDI and EJB, but at some point talks
about JAX-WS (and the MessageContext), but what about JAX-RS, Servlets,
MDB... it would be clearer to have a table that summarizes the spec.
My 2 cents
Antonio
PS : BTW, at the beginning of the document it says "JSR 318 Interceptors
1.2". Strange, still attached to EJB 3.1 ? What about EJB 3.2 ? And what
about evolving on its own JSR ?
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Marina Vatkina
<marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>wrote:
> The @Priority is defined in the common annotation spec:
> http://java.net/projects/**javaee-spec/pages/**CommonAnnotations1_2MR<http://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/pages/CommonAnnotations1_2MR>and it's value attribute is of type int. The Interceptors spec uses that
> value to setup the ranges.
>
> We will need to teach people to use 10 or 50 or even 100 as the add-on to
> the range bottom ;)
>
> Best,
> -marina
>
>
> On 2/8/13 6:09 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Like Mark, my vote would be for float or double -- probably double.
>>
>>
>> In the simple case it looks like an int, but has the flexibility if
>> someone does something like @Priority(1), @Priority(2), @Priority(3),
>> @Priority(4) with no forethought that they should leave space or how much
>> space they should leave.
>>
>> If someone does the above it's very much a "rock and hard place" type of
>> issue. With float you could always later sneak an interceptor into any
>> stack, say @Priority(2.5). Or more likely, someone used @Priority(1) and
>> then someone comes along later and wants to slip in an interceptor ahead of
>> it @Priority(0.5)
>>
>> In my mind float/double allows people to still use ints in source yet is
>> future-proof. No possible way they can code themselves into a corner.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jeremy Bauer <jrbauer_at_us.ibm.com> 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<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<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<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>
>>> To: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.**net<jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net>,
>>> Pete Muir <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<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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris
JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>