| Re: [cdi-dev] Interception in Full: must interceptors be dependent? |
I also thought it clear but that might be because we directly worked on it :)+1 on that clarification, will you send a PR?MatejOn Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:54 AM Ladislav Thon <lthon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I thought the first paragraph of the CDI Full section https://jakarta.ee/specifications/cdi/4.0/jakarta-cdi-spec-4.0#_cdi_full is clear enough, but maybe we should say it more explicitly? Something like:---CDI Full contains all the functionality defined in CDI Lite and adds some additional features such as specialization, decorators, session scope or conversation scope. Some of these concepts were briefly mentioned in the previous CDI Lite chapter and this section of specification defines them in depth.All rules from the CDI Lite specification apply in CDI Full, unless the CDI Full specification says otherwise. Most sections of the CDI Full specification add new rules to the CDI Lite specification, but some of them override the CDI Lite specification and provide a whole new set of rules.---Thoughts?LTOn Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 10:23 AM Matej Novotny via cdi-dev <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:_______________________________________________[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.MatejOn Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 2:37 AM Laird Nelson <ljnelson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:(Not sure where best to ask this publicly. I'll start here.)The specification says in the Lite portion in section 2.7.2: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
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev