Indeed!
2012/10/26 Mark Struberg <struberg_at_yahoo.de>
>
> > We're talking about if a subclass adds an interceptor, is it applied to
> the
> > methods defined on the superclass, or not? (Mark, correct me if I got
> that
> > wrong).
>
> Yes.
>
> But I think we also do need a sanity check on all the other CDI features
> as well. And we have to check if Extensions can deal with that.
> It would be perfect if EJBs and CDI beans would follow the same rules.
> Otoh I don't like to restrict CDI beans unnecessarily because EJB still has
> some ancient restrictions which have no technical validity nowadays but
> originate from some EJB-2 restrictions.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk>
> > To: users_at_ejb-spec.java.net
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:06 PM
> > Subject: [ejb-spec users] Re: A small interceptor question
> >
> >
> > On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:59, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
> >
> >> 2012/10/26 Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk>
> >> >> There is a different behavior if the inherited class is a
> > component or a simple class for EJB.
> >>
> >> What is this difference?
> >>
> >>
> >> 4.9.2.1 Session Bean Superclass
> >> --> says that no behavior inherited from another component (ie. session
> > bean)
> >>
> >> 4.9.2 Session Bean Class
> >> --> non-component-defining annotations are inherited by the subclass
> >>
> >> Don't you have the same reading?
> >
> > Sorry, I was being lazy ;-)
> >
> > Anyway, this is still not really the issue, AIUI.
> >
> > We're talking about if a subclass adds an interceptor, is it applied to
> the
> > methods defined on the superclass, or not? (Mark, correct me if I got
> that
> > wrong).
> >
>