Attempt to use CDI InterceptionFactory #181
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: James R. Perkins <[email protected]>
|
Replaced by #182 to fix the security manager test failures. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR attempts to remove the need to handle interception chains for
@RegisterRestClientproxies manually.Instead it registers the proxies as CDI beans and uses
InterceptionFactoryto let CDI fully handle interception.I've ran the tests with
mvn clean verify -Dversion.org.wildfly=29.0.0.Beta1-SNAPSHOTusing WFLY with latest Weld (5.1.1.Final) in it.There are also some notes in the code regarding what could be improved but if it worked this way up until now, it should be the same with these changes.
@jamezp please review carefully as this seems to have poor test coverage overall and it might be that I missed some RE parts that I am blind to :)