[cdi-dev] Concurrency Control
rmannibucau at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 14:10:51 EST 2016
2016-02-28 20:08 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <werner.keil at gmail.com>:
> Yes, there's no "incubating" stage for JSRs other than "not Final", so as
> soon as a JSR or parts of it are final, they become part of an umbrella
> spec if that spec wants to contain them.
> Potentially from Java EE 9 on there could be much finer grained activation
> or deactivation of features and profiles as soon as the whole Jigsaw thing
> and SE 9 is out, but until then I think we' have to stick to what's
> available right now.
> For CDI 2 modularity or running in Java SE are already in scope, but other
> than e.g. having "ee-concurrency" only in the Java EE profile of CDI, I
> don't see how CDI should do things the platform will provide later anyway.
Fully agree, means @Lock shouldnt go in CDI as everyone stated so falling
back on CDI cause concurrency spec is inactive is a bad choice. Question
leaves CDI list then and is: how to make concurrency active?
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>
>> I am unsure what this means. Firstly I think this functionality is way
>> overdue. Secondly I see little value to having anything that is a
>> pseudo-standard. I'd rather see the effort pursue another path to
>> standardization or remain completely independent while clearly pointing out
>> what the obstacles to standardization are/were.
>> On the other hand if this is required to be implemented in Java EE 8
>> runtimes I don't think it matters what the particular structural gymnastics
>> are. Purely from a JCP standpoint, it is possible to have a
>> sub-specification but only if the eventual goal is to spin it out into a
>> separate specification. Examples of this are JPA, interceptors and others.
>> There is no precedent for an "incubator" specification that is somehow
>> optional. In fact I am pretty sure the current JCP rules would disallow
>> On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
>> At apache we have subprojects which can become top level project if they
>> behaves well. Would it be possible at EE level? Idea would be to have
>> cdi-concurrency subspec (under CDI umbrella but not part of CDI itself -
>> know there was appendix in bval for instance). Then for EE 9 if the subspec
>> is proven as good it would become its own spec. wdyt?
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
>> 2016-02-28 19:16 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>:
>>> > Am 26.02.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Werner Keil <werner.keil at gmail.com>:
>>> > Reza/all,
>>> > One of the biggest problems with Concurrency Utilities is, that it
>>> started in 2003, then went "dormant" (before the term existed) and was
>>> revived to be finalized 10 years later after little or no proper alignment
>>> with then state of the art Java EE standards and technologies. It
>>> duplicates things, especially in EJB or CDI.
>>> +1 that pretty much sums it up. Concurrency utils is pretty much broken
>>> and unusable as it is today. :/
>>> Anyway, let’s not fight the past - we need a way forward.
>>> 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.
>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev