[cdi-dev] Async events. We need ideas to improve CDI-499

[Mark Struberg]

Hi Jozef, here we go!


1.) accessing @RequestScoped beans in your Observer

2.) accessing @SessionScoped beans in your Observer
3.) accessing/relying on any transactional behaviour. This is really a boomer. Basically you break transactions that way.

4.) accessing @TransactionScoped beans in your Observer

5.) access/relying on any ThreadLocal in your Observer
6.) accessing attached entities in your Observers (they must only get accessed from a very single Thread according to the JPA spec)
7.) using an EntityManager in a parallel thread might give you unexpected results.


There might be quite a few more. E.g. we need to specify that EJBs and other EE features need to work in such a new Thread, etc


LieGrue,
strub


On Tuesday, 3 February 2015, 9:40, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:


>
>
>We should enumerate all the arguments supporting async flag on an observer. So far I have only seen one:
>
>- an observer accessing @RequestScoped state would no longer be able
    to do so since it would be run in a worker thread
>
>I am eager to hear more arguments as this single one may not be
    enough to justify the observer-async-flag design decision.
>
>Remember that introducing fireAsync() itself does not break any
    existing application because existing applications are using fire().
    It's when an existing application / library is modified to use
    fireAsync() when the problem may occur. Such change should not be
    done blindly. As with any other change, an author should consider
    possible consequences of the change. Clearly documenting the fact
    that fireAsync() processing is done in a different thread with a
    different @RequestScoped state may be sufficient.
>
>Jozef
>
>
>On 02/02/2015 03:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:
>
>Hi all, 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-499 comes after a lot of discussion about async events.
>>
>>
>>I think the solution exposed here is quite satisfying, yet the idea to need to activate async behaviour on the observer side doesn’t please a lot of us. It’ll be confusing for users to have to activate async from the firing end and consuming end to see it work :-(.
>>
>>
>>I’d like to see alternative proposal to have this new feature as user friendly as possible and keep the retro-compatibility aspect.  We should find a better solution on our next meeting on wednesday.
>>
>>
>>Antoine
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
>_______________________________________________
>cdi-dev mailing list
>cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
>Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
>