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.
Fully agree, means @Lock shouldnt go in CDI as everyone stated so falling
back on CDI cause concurrency spec is inactive is a bad choice. Question
leaves CDI list then and is: how to make concurrency active?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman(a)lycos.com>
> 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
> On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com>
> 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>
> 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.
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
>> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
). 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
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.