[cdi-dev] concurrecy utilities 4 EE and cdi scopes

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

about contexts it is explicitely mentionned in the spec this is not the cdi
one. What is unclear for me is if the CDI "context" (~thread locals) should
be saved or not in this case (whichdoesnt seem listed ATM)

*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
*Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*



2013/6/18 Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>

> Yeah, there are two types of "context" here, which is confusing ;-)
>
> Can you file an issue?
>
> On 18 Jun 2013, at 10:04, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > i think/hope it will behave this way excepted thanks to the
> ContextService it can be synchronous too but since the context can change
> you can get different instances. Would be great to get some really explicit
> thing about it IMO.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/6/18 Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com>
> > I think this is specified in 2.3 Container Thread Context:
> > "The types of contexts to be propagated from a contextualizing
> > application component include JNDI naming
> > context, classloader, and security information. Containers must support
> > propagation of these context types. In
> > addition, containers can choose to support propagation of other types of
> > context."
> >
> > Furthermore the CDI spec states in 6.7 Context management for built-in
> > scopes:
> > "The context does not propagate across remote method invocations or to
> > asynchronous processes
> > such as JMS message listeners or EJB timer service timeouts."
> >
> > So I don't think any of @RequestScoped, @SessionScoped and
> > @ConversationScoped tasks should work... However this would contradict
> > the CDI-related section 2.3.2.1, where @RequestScoped CDI beans are not
> > recommended but also not forbidden.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Dne 17.6.2013 16:31, Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a):
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > reading concurrency utilities i understand the container should
> > > propagate the caller "context" (no link with cdi contexts) but it
> > > doesn't defined explicitly what it is. So here is the question: are CDI
> > > contexts (scopes) included in this "context"? - i think to request,
> > > session, conversation scopes in particular.
> > >
> > > Since you can submit a request scope bean (bad idea but allowed
> > > explicitely) i tend to think it should be done but then the request
> > > scope is broken (since that's a thread scope by design) so not sure
> > > where is the issue if there is one or if i missed something.
> > >
> > > Any idea?
> > >
> > > /Romain Manni-Bucau/
> > > /Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>/
> > > /Blog: //http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com//
> > > /LinkedIn: //_http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau_/
> > > /Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdi-dev mailing list
> > > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20130618/466c3590/attachment.html