Hi Werner,

No, it doesn’t cover @Asynchronous or @Async annotation. Discussion about async operation support in CDI 2.0 is another subject.

Le 21 janv. 2015 à 13:52, Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com> a écrit :

Antoine/all,

Is it safe to assume any recent discussion about an @Asynchronous annotation would be covered there unless e.g. EJB itself needs it to be updated for EE 8?

Werner

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, <cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org> wrote:

Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
        cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        cdi-dev-owner@lists.jboss.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously
      (Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA))
   2. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-31) Asynchronous events
      (Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA))
   3. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously
      (Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA))
   4. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously
      (Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA))
   5. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously
      (Jos? Paumard (JIRA))
   6. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously
      (Jozef Hartinger (JIRA))


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Message: 6
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:06:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)" <issues@jboss.org>
Subject: [cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously
To: cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
Message-ID:
        <JIRA.12561330.1421835166000.18078.1421842009269@Atlassian.JIRA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13034058#comment-13034058 ]

Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-499:
-------------------------------------

{quote}For backward compatibility reason the possibility to invoke an observer asynchronously should be let to the observer{quote}
What exactly are the reasons for this? I can think of one:
- observer method injecting a @RequestScoped (or similar) bean
Are there other arguments for this?

{quote}3. Observer bound to a transaction phase
these observer will be invoked in the right transaction phase but asynchronously{quote}
How's that different from Event.fire()?

> Firing events asynchronously
> -----------------------------
>
>                 Key: CDI-499
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-499
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Feature Request
>          Components: Events
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.Final
>            Reporter: Antoine Sabot-Durand
>
> We should allow a way to fire event asynchronously. This mechanism should leverage new async API in JDK8 especially the {{CompletionStage}} interface.
> Our proposal is:
> h2. 1. Add {{fireAsync()}} method to {{Event}} and {{BeanManager}}
> Signature of the method on {{Event<T>}} would be
> {code:java}
> <U extends T> CompletionStage<U> fireAsync(U event);
> {code}
> Signature on {{BeanManager}} would be
> {code:java}
> <T> CompletionStage<T> fireAsyncEvent(T event, Annotation... qualifiers)
> {code}
> h2. 2. Add an {{asyncSupported()}} member to {{@Observes}}
> For backward compatibility reason the possibility to invoke an observer asynchronously should be let to the observer (legacy observers should be called synchronously). We propose to add the boolean {{asyncSupported()}} member with the {{false}} default value to support this backward compatibility aspect.
> So to be notified asynchronously an observer should have {{asyncSupported}} member to true. otherwise it will be called synchronously.
> h2. 3. Observer bound to a transaction phase
> these observer will be invoked in the right transaction phase but asynchronously
> h2. 4. Event Ordering
> Should we decide to add events ordering in CDI 2.0, the order will be keep in asynchronous observer notification. If there are a mix of synchronous and asynchronous observer, asynchronous will be called first in order, then synchronous in their order (async has priority on sync).
> h2. 5. Event state (payload mutability)
> We'll keep payload mutability with async events (but should explicitly specify it). That means  that we should guarantee the event state consistency between observers and in case of ordered observers the fact that observer N+1 get the event state at the end of observer N.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@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.

End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 50, Issue 42
***************************************

_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@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.