Hi,
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Linda DeMichiel <
linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> This sounds to me more like a CDI issue than an Interceptor spec issue.
CDI has to act on it (implement it), but at the Interceptor declaration
side you would still need a way to say before/after.
> This could be done without API changes by using a negative value in
>> @Priority for this.
>>
>>
> Well, the Interceptor spec states that negative priority values
> *should not* be used because they are reserved for future use, so
> this is something that could be considered.
>
Sounds good, I hope it will indeed be considered then. The Future Is Now ;)
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
>
>
> The use case is implementing something like the EJB implicit pooling
>> feature of @Stateless beans. This is very hard to do with interceptors
>> that only get called after a bean instance is created.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Arjan Tijms
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:42 AM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com
>> <mailto:arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Linda DeMichiel
>> <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com <mailto:linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> My expectation is that this
>> would be an "errata MR" (Rev A) as I am not planning any API
>> changes.
>>
>>
>> Should the MR result in any need for behaviour changes, is there any
>> plan or roadmap to apply these changes to GlassFish 5?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Arjan Tijms
>>
>>
>>