<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Le 19 mars 2015 à 15:51, Romain Manni-Bucau <<a href="mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com" class="">rmannibucau@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">sounds like a quick and dirty solution to me. @Async will arrive</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Yes like in “Async is coming” ;)</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""> - maybe too early today - but adding @ObservesAsync just cause we dont have yet @Async will make this API obselete pretty quickly isn't it (already cause of EJB actually).</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>and if we add an @Async in our spec you think it’s better ?</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Do we really want this feature at this price?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>#1 requested feature by users.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">If yes <b style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class="">AsyncObserves </b><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class="">sounds an acceptable compromise but still will mess up the API IMO.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>The question is “Is it more or less messy than @Async @Observes?" I don’t know… It has pros and cons as I listed... </div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><span style="font-size:small" class="">Romain Manni-Bucau</span><br class=""><a href="https://twitter.com/rmannibucau" target="_blank" class="">@rmannibucau</a> | <a href="http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/" target="_blank" class="">Blog</a> | <a href="https://github.com/rmannibucau" target="_blank" class="">Github</a> | <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau" target="_blank" class="">LinkedIn</a> | <a href="http://www.tomitribe.com/" target="_blank" class="">Tomitriber</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">2015-03-19 15:36 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net" target="_blank" class="">antoine@sabot-durand.net</a>></span>:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Hi guys,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So it seems impossible to avoid opt-in on the observer side for the sake of awkward compatibility.</div><div class="">Adding a member to @Observes could also be a source of issues when old CDI lib will be used with CDI 2.0 runtime. Some of us (including me) don’t want to add an @Async annotation to CDI spec, so perhaps we should add an async alternative to @Observes with an @AsyncObserves or @ObservesAsync ?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">So it would be</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">public void myObserver(<b class="">@AsyncObserves</b> payload) {}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">instead of</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><b class="">@Async</b></div><div class="">public void myObserver(@Observes payload) {}</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Pros :</div><div class="">- it’s a cleaner way to manage the opt-in than to put 2 annotations or add a member to an existing one</div><div class="">- it could have new members related to async behavior (context propagation, concurrent scenario, etc…)</div><div class="">- As it won’t be in legacy code no risk to see old observers called asynchronously </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cons :</div><div class="">- Still not clear for users when fire() is called to see @AsyncObserves launched synchronously</div><div class="">- Yet another annotation added</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">wdyt ?</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Antoine</div></font></span></div><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
cdi-dev mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" class="">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" target="_blank" class="">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>