[cdi-dev] Contexts behavior in SE and Async Event for EDR1

Fri Jun 19 09:08:01 EDT 2015

I am talking about:

* remote method invocations
* @Asynchronous method invocation
* @Timeout method invocation
* MDB message delivery
* @PostConstruct callback invocation

all of which are portable. We can expand the definition for other 
"tasks" that make sense, e.g. async observer notification.

On 06/19/2015 02:59 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Looks like you miss the main point. The usage is not portable most of 
> the time. Cant we make it portable?
>
> Le 19 juin 2015 13:57, "Jozef Hartinger" <jharting at redhat.com 
> <mailto:jharting at redhat.com>> a écrit :
>
>     I agree with Martin and Mark. @RequestScoped already is used as a
>     general purpose task-bound scope. This covers, but is not limited to,
>     HTTP request. On the other hand @SessionScoped and @ConversationScoped
>     are only defined to be available for HTTP requests.
>
>     On 06/19/2015 08:43 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:
>     > Jozef, Martin,
>     >
>     >
>     > What is your POV on that ?
>     >
>     > Antoine
>     >
>     >
>     >> Le 18 juin 2015 à 20:37, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de
>     <mailto:struberg at yahoo.de>> a écrit :
>     >>
>     >> 1.) The whole point is that @RequestScoped is NOT a web context!
>     >>
>     >> Otherwise it would _not_ be active in JMS etc…
>     >> And that was not an accident but intentional.
>     >>
>     >> 2.) And no, different async threads will _never_ get the same
>     request context…
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> 3.) no @RequestScoped is a sub-part of a @ThreadScoped.
>     Otherwise you would get the same context for 2 JMS invocations
>     which get (randomly) executed on the same worker thread. Got me?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> LieGrue,
>     >> strub
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>> Am 18.06.2015 um 15:13 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
>     <rmannibucau at gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau at gmail.com>>:
>     >>>
>     >>> Hi
>     >>>
>     >>> I wouldn't activate any "web" scope by default, in particular
>     for async events where I think most of the time it will not be
>     used. Next feature request will be to inherit the scope between
>     async threads....and here I guess we agree it will not go very far.
>     >>>
>     >>> Side note: using request scope where actually a thread scope
>     is needed is a pain, maybe time to add a thread scoped with an
>     accessible manual activation. Would make "batches", "timers" etc
>     easy to impl/integrate.
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>     >>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>     >>>
>     >>> 2015-06-18 15:10 GMT+02:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand
>     <antoine at sabot-durand.net <mailto:antoine at sabot-durand.net>>:
>     >>> Hi guys,
>     >>>
>     >>> We should finally decide how to manage normal scope context
>     (other than application context ) in SE and during Async Event for
>     EDR1.
>     >>>
>     >>> Having only RequestContext active during async event  as
>     Martin suggest in the PR makes sense and would be consistent with
>     its behavior during async EJB call.
>     >>>
>     >>> Mark asked twice to activate Request Context all the time in
>     SE (making it a new Application Context). I’m not found of it, but
>     I’ml not the only one to decide here.
>     >>>
>     >>> What is you feeling about this ?
>     >>>
>     >>> Antoine
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> cdi-dev mailing list
>     >>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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.
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> cdi-dev mailing list
>     >>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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.
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> cdi-dev mailing list
>     >> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     cdi-dev mailing list
>     cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150619/a2a7724e/attachment-0001.html 