Transactional observers are by definition async so they should behave
the same no matter if fired with fire() or fireAsync().
On 02/10/2015 09:13 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Oh one more thing I found which is most probably broken or totally
changes the behaviour
8.) All observers with transactionPhase != IN_PROGRESS
LieGrue,
strub
> On Tuesday, 10 February 2015, 8:58, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de> wrote:
>> Hi José!
> Backward compatibility is perfectly fine with both approaches. People can use
> BeanManager#fire() instead of the newly proposed BeanManager#fireAsync().
>
>
> My point is that many people will simply not be able to use fireAsync() because
> as a framework developer you really need to code defensive. Without an explicit
> opt-in on observer side fireAsync() can basically only be used in situations
> where you _exactly_ know all your observers...
>
> An own @Async annotation would also be nice as it could not only be used at
> @Observes but also for @Event
>
> @Inject
> @Async
>
> @Event
>
> private Event<UserLoggedIn> userLoggedInEventSource;
>
>
> The benefit of an own @Async annotation over extending e.g. the @Event
> annotation is that it would be perfectly backward compatible. This code would
> also run on CDI-1.0 .. 1.2 containers (as all annotations which are not
> available on the classpath will simply be ignored by the JVM.
>
> 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.