8:08 p.m.
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.
Regards,
Werner
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman(a)lycos.com> wrote:
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
this.
On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
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
<http://www.tomitribe.com>
2016-02-28 19:16 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>:
>
> > Am 26.02.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)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.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)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(a)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.