Details

    • Type: Feature Request
    • Status: Resolved (View Workflow)
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Duplicate Issue
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:

      Description

      As discussed with Jozef Hartinger on the WELD forum thread (see forum reference and CDI-224),
      would it be possible to revisit why decorator requires an interface ?

      I do not understand the semantic difference between:
      1. a decorator to be an abstract class which implements an interface, which delegate to the same interface.
      2. a decorator to be a concrete class which extends a another class, which delegates to the same class.

      Why 1. should be allowed and why 2. should be disallowed ?

      As stated in CDI-224, if there is no technical reason of disallowing 2., should it be then considerate as a vendor specific feature to support it whether or not ?

      It is kind of sad that only decorators requires an interface while all the others Java EE 6 features do not.

      Thanks,

        Gliffy Diagrams

          Attachments

            Issue Links

              Activity

                People

                • Assignee:
                  Unassigned
                  Reporter:
                  matlach Mathieu Lachance
                • Votes:
                  2 Vote for this issue
                  Watchers:
                  7 Start watching this issue

                  Dates

                  • Created:
                    Updated:
                    Resolved: