Hi Antonio,
Thanks for reviewing. It's good that you didn't have many issues with
the new version of the spec - it means it's in a good shape ;).
We didn't want the Interceptors spec to prescribe how it is used, but
let other specs choose their way. As it stands today, the @Interceptors
annotation is supported by the EJB and @ManagedBean specs. The
Interceptor binding by the CDI spec. So in theory, you can have both
types on an EJB (though it's not advisable), that's why the ordering
section even tells you the order if both types are present.
Otherwise, only AroundTimeout is special for the EJBs, but just because
the Timer Service had not yet expanded into the CDI.
The AroundConstruct is coming on Monday or Tuesday the latest.
The spec is under MR, so it belongs to the same JSR as it was released.
It's previous (only) version was 1.1 (even though the EJB spec had 3.1
version under the same JSR), so the updated one is 1.2.
Hope this all makes sense.
Best,
-marina
On 2/10/13 8:22 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
> 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 <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> The @Priority is defined in the common annotation spec:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>,
> Cc: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>>
> To: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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>