users@javaee-spec.java.net

[javaee-spec users] Re: About Interceptors's enabling

From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:53:54 -0700

I agree, it sounds like an implementation bug. Please file a bug against
GlassFish <https://java.net/jira/browse/GLASSFISH>.

Mark Struberg wrote on 10/18/13 09:13:
> I'd say that's an impl bug.
>
> beans.xml and @Priority only say IF and in which order the interceptor is
> enabled. But it still is there only once.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* John D. Ament <john.d.ament_at_gmail.com>
> *To:* users_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> *Cc:* Tang Yong <tangyong_at_cn.fujitsu.com>; Pete Muir
> <pete.muir_at_gmail.com>; Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 October 2013, 15:24
> *Subject:* [javaee-spec users] Re: About Interceptors's enabling
>
> I wonder if this is somehow related to an issue I saw pop up on SO recently.
>
> Basically, there's an issue where if an interceptor is annotated
> @Priority and listed in beans.xml, it gets invoked twice.
>
> Is this the expected behavior?
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk
> <mailto:pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk>> wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> >
> > I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question :-(
> >
> > Perhaps you could provide a concrete example of what you would prefer?
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > On 17 Oct 2013, at 09:03, Tang Yong <tangyong_at_cn.fujitsu.com
> <mailto:tangyong_at_cn.fujitsu.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> Pete
> >> CC: Bill
> >>
> >> I have a question about Interceptors's enabling.
> >>
> >> The story should come from [1] and [2], and from "5.3 Ordering
> >> Interceptors using the Priority Annotation" of JSR 318.
> >>
> >> "An interceptor bound to a component, a component method, or constructor
> >> using interceptor binding may be enabled for the entire application by
> >> applying the Priority annotation, along with a priority value, on the
> >> interceptor class."
> >>
> >> From another fact, Interceptors are deployment-specific and are disabled
> >> by default. Like alternatives, interceptors have to be
> >> enabled by using the CDI deployment descriptor beans.xml of the jar.
> >>
> >> Well, if I uses interceptors binding, I will meet two cases,
> >>
> >> 1) I must enable interceptors in beans.xml explicitly if I am not ready
> >> to use @Priority.
> >>
> >> 2) Once I uses @Priority, I need to take care of whether to need to
> >> declare interceptors in beans.xml becase this may break/override
> >> invocation order of interceptors.
> >>
> >> Based on such facts, enable interceptors in beans.xml explicitly has
> >> brought two different resposibilities for interceptors binding, so, for
> >> an user, this has caused some puzzles just as I made a mistake in [2].
> >>
> >> My question is that why we can not make "enable interceptors in
> >> beans.xml explicitly" bring *only one* resposibility?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Tang
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >>
> https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists/jsr342-experts/archive/2012-12/message/15
> >> [2]: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1528
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ----------------------
> >> Tang Yong
> >> Senior Engineer
> >> GlassFish Committer (OSGi & OSGi-JavaEE)
> >> OSGi Alliance Supporter
> >> Blog: http://osgizone.typepad.com/tangyong/
> >>
> >> Nanjing Fujitsu NanDa Software Tec CO.,LTD
> >> http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fnst
> >> Tel: +86-25-86630566-8310
> >> Fax: +86-25-83317685
> >> ----------------------
> >>
> >
>
>