Good point, I'll forward it to the EE EG
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:
> Antonio, I think your table would be a good fit for the Java EE spec
> though!
>
> On 11 Feb 2013, at 01:55, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>
> > 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> 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> 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>
> >> To: 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
> >>
> >> 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 | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
> >
>
>
--
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>