Mark Struberg

Hi @omniprof! The argument back then was that Java is designed to be as simple as possible. So they ripped every semantic redundancy out of the language in the beginning....

I got some good feedback recently. This works great in the Java world. But we should probably also evaluate how this can be transformed in JavaScript.

Great, thanks @m0mus. Now the question remains whether you think we should further clarify this in the spec?

@Ladicek there are 2 recommended ways. What you wrote is the option a) in my original ticket. But there is also usage option b.) with the finally block. My problem...

the original design proposed in the discussions was always with the boolean gotActivated flag. That's the reason the boolean return value was introduced in the first place. Otherwise you don't...

> Also, it is hardly the only case where users make or break their CDI app (such as memory leaks with dependent beans obtained through dynamic lookup that users don't...

@Ladicek In reality the activation is nested over different independent classes which obviously are not required to know about each other.

I can see how it can work. But it's not so obvious to users. I think it would be wise to add an example. Most people are probably not aware...

This test used to check the CDI support for javax.interceptor.Interceptors. Not it tests support for the @InterceptorBinding mechanism. Thats's just something very different, don't you agree? Of course, we should...

Applying interceptor via ```@InterceptorBinding``` is something different than via ```@jakarta.interceptor.Interceptors```. It's a different mechanism. You ASSUME that both behave the same internally. But how can you guarantee that if you...