I'm not sure I understand your concerns here....
-marina
On 1/12/13 5:21 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> I found another thing we must consider.
>
> @PostConstruct methods must not throw a checked Exception.
> The problem would happen with EJB style interceptors which do not denote anything on the interceptor class itself. Another case is when you have a parent interceptor..
>
> having some
>
> public class InterceptorParent {
>
> @PostConstruct
> public void init(InvocationContext ic) throws Exception {
> ic.proceed();
> }
> }
>
> would currently complain that a @PostConstruct method must not throw a checked Exception.
> We should relax that case to not apply for methods with an InvocationContext parameter type.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: David Blevins <david.blevins_at_gmail.com>
>> To: marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com
>> Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg_at_yahoo.de>; ejb-users <users_at_ejb-spec.java.net>; jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:08 PM
>> Subject: [ejb-spec users] Re: [jsr345-experts] [interceptors] @PostActivate, etc interceptor signature?
>>
>> Posted this yesterday, but not sure if it came through:
>>
>> This is something I've been meaning to bring up. Currently the rules are interceptor signatures for callbacks are not allowed to return Object or throw Exception. Blogged about it here: http://blog.dblevins.com/2010/09/ejbnext-interceptor-improvements-method.html
>>
>> We chose that altered method signature because it effectively matched the method signature of the callback itself, but it has some terrible consequences. The worst is that InvocationContext.proceed() method signature is always the same:
>>
>> public Object proceed() throws Exception
>>
>> When the Interceptor isn't allowed to have the same method signature it creates awkward and unfortunately unavoidable boiler plate:
>>
>> @PostConstruct
>> @PreDestroy
>> @PrePassivate
>> @PostActivate
>> @AroundTimeout
>> public void callback(InvocationContext context) {
>> try {
>> intercept(context);
>> } catch (Exception e) {
>> if (e instanceof RuntimeException) {
>> throw (RuntimeException) e;
>> } else{
>> throw new RuntimeException(e);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> We should update the spec rules so that interceptor method signatures for callbacks are allowed to be the same and let the container handle the possible undeclared exception issues rather than force that upon the application code in every single callback interceptor they create.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Good question. Looks like when Interceptors spec was created from the EJB spec, the PrePassivate/PostActivate callbacks were left in the EJB spec, while the rest was moved out.
>>>
>>> We have (obviously) two choices:
>>>
>>> 1) add the method signatures (back) to the EJB spec section "7.5 Interceptors for LifeCycle Event Callbacks"
>>> 2) change the Interceptors spec to distinguish between the LC interceptors in general and the ones that are supported (i.e. PostConstruct/PreDestroy).
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -marina
>>>
>>> On 1/8/13 6:36 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>> Hi folks!
>>>>
>>>> The method signatures for @AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct _interceptors_ (not the postconstruct lifecycle methods, but the interceptors for them!) are well defined in the interceptors spec.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But what about the method signatures for an interceptor for @PostActivate and the others which are defined in InterceptionType [1]?
>>>> I didn't find anything about them in the interceptors spec. Where can I find this info?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> txs and LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/InterceptionType.html
>>>>
>>
>>
>>