Re question 1: yes, both methods should be intercepted (provided @Transactional has
@Inherited) - see 4.1. "Inheritance of type-level metadata":
If X is annotated with a qualifier type, stereotype or interceptor binding type
Z then Y inherits the annotation if and only if Z declares the @Inherited
meta-annotation and neither Y nor any intermediate class that is a subclass of
X and a superclass of Y declares an annotation of type Z.
AFIAK we have a test in CDI TCK 1.1 for this.
M
Dne 18.10.2012 17:34, Mark Struberg napsal(a):
I think there are 2 different questions to answer here:
@Transactional
public class A {
public void methodA();
}
public class B extends A {
public void methodB();
}
Question 1: does the @Transactional interceptor get inherited and both
methodA() and methodB() get intercepted, or will only methodA() get
intercepted? I assume the Transactional annotation itself is marked as
inherited.
And now for the other case:
public class A {
public void methodA();
}
@Transactional
public class B extends A {
public void methodB();
}
Question 2: does the @Transactional interceptor also affect inherited methods
and both methodA() and methodB() get intercepted, or will only methodB() get
intercepted?
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Marius Bogoevici <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Martin Kouba <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: @Transactional interceptor ignores derived methods
IMO the way in which the specification should be interpreted is by taking into
account the whole set of metadata (inherited and defined on) of a particular
bean class.
Therefore: @Transactional being @Inherited IIRC, the binding will be technically
present on the derived class, so its methods will be considered bound,
regardless whether they are defined on the class itself, inherited from the
annotated class, or even inherited from a superclass of the annotated class.
On 2012-10-18 10:43 AM, Martin Kouba wrote:
I think this should work and works for my quick and dirty test.
Actually the CDI spec only covers inherited interceptor bindings (9.5.
Interceptor resolution).
Dirk, could you provide the source code of your test case so that we could
check it?
Martin
Dne 16.10.2012 21:13, Jason Porter napsal(a):
That's probably a good place to send it yes. I still think an exact
test
case would be helpful (yes, I know you can't add to a testsuite or
see
what's in there).
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Mark Struberg
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I also have the gut feeling that it should work. I read
through the
interceptors spec though and didn't find any explicit wording.
We should redirect this question to the EJB EG which handles the
interceptors spec, isn't?
I remember David saying that for _some_ kind of interceptors it
does not
work that way. But I don't remember exactly which one.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Porter <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: @Transactional interceptor ignores derived methods
Dirk,
From my understanding of the specs and also from talking with
Pete Muir
and
Mark Struberg because this is an Interceptor it should work
correctly. If
it is not, chances are this is a bug in the container and
should be
reported.
We'd love to have some feedback and some contributions in
this area, I
just
went through the test code and it doesn't look like we have
a test with
your scenario Dirk. Would you be able to contribute one for us,
please?
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Pete Muir
<[email protected]> wrote:
IMO it should apply to superclasses as well.
On 16 Oct 2012, at 14:02, Dirk Weil wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> I started a discussion at
https://community.jboss.org/message/764873#764873
> about the seam transaction interceptor, which is not
handling derived
> methods (see original post further down). Jason
Porter pointed me to
this
> mail list, stating that DeltaSpikes Transactional
Interceptor behaves
in
the
> same way. What are the reasons for this? Isn't
it normally the
case that
a
> user wants transactional behavior regardless of
where the method is
defined
> (base class or derived class)?
>
> Additionally I regard it dangerous if an interceptor
does not behave
like an
> ordinal interceptor (I know: Transactional
intercepts every call, but
it
> does different things depending on the class
defining the method
> intercepted).
>
>
>
> Please give me some hint, why the implementation of
Transactional was
done
> in that way.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much and best regards
>
> Dirk Weil
>
-- Jason Porter
http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate
PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
--
Martin Kouba
JBoss Quality Assurance Engineer
CDI TCK lead
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
