[cdi-dev] Async events. We need ideas to improve CDI-499
jharting at redhat.com
Tue Feb 10 04:30:34 EST 2015
Transactional observers are by definition async so they should behave
the same no matter if fired with fire() or fireAsync().
On 02/10/2015 09:13 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Oh one more thing I found which is most probably broken or totally changes the behaviour
> 8.) All observers with transactionPhase != IN_PROGRESS
>> On Tuesday, 10 February 2015, 8:58, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
>>> Hi José!
>> Backward compatibility is perfectly fine with both approaches. People can use
>> BeanManager#fire() instead of the newly proposed BeanManager#fireAsync().
>> My point is that many people will simply not be able to use fireAsync() because
>> as a framework developer you really need to code defensive. Without an explicit
>> opt-in on observer side fireAsync() can basically only be used in situations
>> where you _exactly_ know all your observers...
>> An own @Async annotation would also be nice as it could not only be used at
>> @Observes but also for @Event
>> private Event<UserLoggedIn> userLoggedInEventSource;
>> The benefit of an own @Async annotation over extending e.g. the @Event
>> annotation is that it would be perfectly backward compatible. This code would
>> also run on CDI-1.0 .. 1.2 containers (as all annotations which are not
>> available on the classpath will simply be ignored by the JVM.
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> 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.
More information about the cdi-dev