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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; wrote: > Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to > cdi-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cdi-dev-owner(a)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(a)jboss.org&gt; > Subject: [cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously > To: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Message-ID: > <JIRA.12561330.1421835166000.18078.1421842009269(a)Atlassian.JIRA&gt; > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > [ > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... > ] > > 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(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. > > End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 50, Issue 42 > *************************************** > _______________________________________________ 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.

My concern is too avoid creating a new EJB spec with CDI 2. Managing async operation is now very simple for end user with java 8, so do we have to add annotation to support it. I wonder. Antoine Sabot-Durand Le 21 janv. 2015 à 16:07, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : Hi Antoine, It seems the exact place for that is still to be found, but even if these are separate threads in parallel the fact that CDI 2 aims to add support for async events means anything other JSRs cannot do or don't want to do (see Bill's remark on resources in other JSRs) would fit into CDI 2 as long as the resource situation here isn't too critical either of course;-) That's what I wanted to say. Werner On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; wrote: > >> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to >> cdi-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> cdi-dev-owner(a)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(a)jboss.org&gt; >> Subject: [cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously >> To: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Message-ID: >> <JIRA.12561330.1421835166000.18078.1421842009269(a)Atlassian.JIRA&gt; >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> >> [ >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... >> ] >> >> 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(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. >> >> End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 50, Issue 42 >> *************************************** >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > >