Re: [cdi-dev] What about @AsyncObserves ?

Le 19 mars 2015 à 16:52, José Paumard <jose.paumard(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : > So it seems impossible to avoid opt-in on the observer side What is the "killer" argument for that ? José 2015-03-19 16:44 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net <mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net>>: > Le 19 mars 2015 à 15:51, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>> a écrit : > > sounds like a quick and dirty solution to me. @Async will arrive Yes like in “Async is coming” ;) > - 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). and if we add an @Async in our spec you think it’s better ? > > Do we really want this feature at this price? #1 requested feature by users. > If yes AsyncObserves sounds an acceptable compromise but still will mess up the API IMO. The question is “Is it more or less messy than @Async @Observes?" I don’t know… It has pros and cons as I listed... > > > 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/> > 2015-03-19 15:36 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net <mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net>>: > Hi guys, > > > So it seems impossible to avoid opt-in on the observer side for the sake of awkward compatibility. > 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 ? > > So it would be > > public void myObserver(@AsyncObserves payload) {} > > instead of > > @Async > public void myObserver(@Observes payload) {} > > > Pros : > - it’s a cleaner way to manage the opt-in than to put 2 annotations or add a member to an existing one > - it could have new members related to async behavior (context propagation, concurrent scenario, etc…) > - As it won’t be in legacy code no risk to see old observers called asynchronously > > Cons : > - Still not clear for users when fire() is called to see @AsyncObserves launched synchronously > - Yet another annotation added > > wdyt ? > > Antoine > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <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 <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 <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev <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 <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. -- Java le soir <http://blog.paumard.org/> Cours Java en ligne <http://blog.paumard.org/cours-tutoriaux/> Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/JosePaumard> Paris JUG <http://www.parisjug.org/> Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr/> M : +33 6 76 82 91 47