[included cdi-dev where this discussion belongs]
Yes, interceptors need to be dependent regardless of whether it's Lite or Full.
Whatever Lite part of the specification states holds true for Full as well.
Also, when a chapter is "overriden" in the Full specification, it often contains link to the Lite version and states how it differs from or follows that.
2.7.2 (which contains the bit we are talking about) isn't anyhow altered in Full so it isn't repeated either.
I understand the confusion, but reiterating all of these statements in both sections would be likely to massively bloat the specification.
Matej
(Not sure where best to ask this publicly. I'll start here.)
If an interceptor declares any scope other than @Dependent, the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a definition error.
Fine.
In the CDI Full portion there is no mention of this requirement, and there is no backreference to 2.7 at all to include it by reference. Section
3.6.1 refers to
2.7.3, but nothing in it or anything else in the Full portion places any restriction on the scope of an interceptor.
I'm assuming this is an oversight, and that also in Full interceptors must be in @Dependent scope?
Happy weekend,
Best,
Laird
