[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously

[Werner Keil]

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 at lists.jboss.org> wrote:

> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
>         cdi-dev at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         cdi-dev-owner at 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 at jboss.org>
> Subject: [cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-499) Firing events asynchronously
> To: cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Message-ID:
>         <JIRA.12561330.1421835166000.18078.1421842009269 at 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 at 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
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150121/0a6e70ce/attachment.html