On 5/11/12 11:15 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>> Now, I don't mind revisiting whether to remove interceptors or not, if
>> we discuss how the various use cases I presented could be implemented
>> without them. This is much different than arguing to remove
>> interceptors because they conflict with some edge case.
>
> All right - but you asked for it :)
>
> Note that I am not questioning interceptors as such here. I am merely
> questioning the need for *name-bound* interceptors.
Ah ok. That may be true (can't think of a case now), but here's some
things to think about:
* Interceptors may be interested in annotation metadata to fine-tune
their behavior. Name-bound interceptors allow the interceptor to
pre-process and cache this metadata.
* Without name-bound interceptors, a global interceptor that is
triggered by an annotation has to check with each read/write whether or
not it is enabled.
* Without name-bound itnerceptors, every possible interceptor has to be
in the call stack. Maybe not such a big deal for performance, but
really sucks for stack traces!
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com