+1
And we have to define that the Locale for the float precision character should be Locale.US (xxxx.yyy) in the various config files like beans.xml.
That's basically the only thing we need to do (to prevent behaving different on Locale.DE servers, etc).
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: David Blevins <david.blevins_at_gmail.com>
> To: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:09 AM
> Subject: [ejb-spec users] [jsr345-experts] Re: Re: Re: Interceptors spec 1.2 draft is available for review
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>