On 29 Mar 2013, at 18:42, Jeremy Bauer <jrbauer_at_us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I may have overlooked something, but does CDI allow non-private non-public methods to be final?
No. Not *if* a proxy is required.
> With the new rules, couldn't we have this situation?
>
> @Stateless public class MyBean {
> final void m() { };
> }
>
> public class Other {
> @EJB MyBean field; // PASS
> @Inject MyBean field; // FAIL - unproxyable
> }
>
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
> From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>
> To: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net,
> Cc: Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk>, Jeremy Bauer/Rochester/IBM_at_IBMUS
> Date: 03/28/2013 02:06 PM
> Subject: [jsr345-experts] Re: Final methods in a bean class?
>
>
>
> So we are just catching up with the CDI spec ;)
>
> Thanks Pete.
>
> -marina
>
> On 3/28/13 11:21 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
> > Static methods were never considered as a block to proxability.
> >
> > On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:20, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How about static methods?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> -marina
> >>
> >> On 3/28/13 11:12 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
> >>> We updated the requirements in CDI to specifically exclude private methods from proxability requirements. Note we moved this to it's own section - 3.15
> >>>
> >>> Pete
> >>>
> >>> On 28 Mar 2013, at 17:16, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well, Pete is on this list (and I'm cc-ing him here explicitly), but I don't think private final (or static final) methods should be restricted...
> >>>>
> >>>> -marina
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/28/13 9:30 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Marina,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Won't allowing final methods will cause an inconsistency with the CDI spec? CDI 1.0 section 5.4.1 says:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Certain legal bean types cannot be proxied by the container:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> • classes which are declared final or have final methods,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And I believe this is true in CDI 1.1, but I don't have that spec handy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Jeremy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>
> >>>>> To: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net,
> >>>>> Date: 03/27/2013 06:21 PM
> >>>>> Subject: [jsr345-experts] Re: Final methods in a bean class?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After a longer discussion with Mark offline and not to allow users to
> >>>>> shoot themselves into a foot, the new proposal is to change both
> >>>>> statements as follow:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (a) "All non-static public methods of the bean class and of any
> >>>>> superclasses except the java.lang.Object, are exposed as business methods."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (b) "Business methods exposed through the no-interface view must not be
> >>>>> declared final."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me know if anybody disagrees.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks,
> >>>>> -marina
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 3/27/13 11:36 AM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> >>>>>> Experts,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The EJB spec currently requires that if a bean exposes a no-interface
> >>>>>> view (see 4.9.8 Session Bean’s No-Interface View):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (a) "All public methods of the bean class and of any superclasses
> >>>>>> except the java.lang.Object, are exposed as business methods through
> >>>>>> the no-interface view."
> >>>>>> (b) "All methods of the bean class and any superclasses must not be
> >>>>>> declared final."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For all other views the rules for a *business method* is
> >>>>>> "The method must not be declared as final or static."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does any of you see a problem with removing the rule (b) and changing
> >>>>>> the rule (a) to:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "All non-final non-static public methods of the bean class and of any
> >>>>>> superclasses except the java.lang.Object, are exposed as business
> >>>>>> methods through the no-interface view."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thanks,
> >>>>>> -marina
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
>
>