On 03/18/2015 01:28 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
2015-03-18 13:15 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com
<mailto:jharting@redhat.com>>:
On 03/18/2015 11:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
sequentializing them arbitrarily just makes it not async anymore
the event firing thread won't wait for event delivery so it is
still async
well doesn't change the fact you break original async need/wish doing it.
break
what?
(+ think to the case you dont really have priorities you are
just breaking the whole concept).
If you do not have priorities (or they are the same) then it is
most likely fine to notify the observers in parallel. If you
however do have priorities then it makes sense IMO to take them
into account. Doing otherwise just complicates the entire concept
by adding an artificial constraint.
point is you are introducing a model concept which is not aligned on
the common model + doesn't even match correctly the async needs (what
about onFailure() and onTimeout() which are mandatory when doing async)
what common
model?
I tend to join Mark saying we should just do the minimum instead of
wanting to do to much and providing something highly broken we'll need
to fix in next version with more broken patterns. What's the need is
the real question, not what would be cool to implement.
Don't forget an async spec smells more and more strong with real async
semantic and solutions so I guess the less we put in CDI now better it is.