[cdi-dev] What about @AsyncObserves ?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

sounds like a quick and dirty solution to me. @Async will arrive - maybe
too early today - but adding @ObservesAsync just cause we dont have yet
@Async will make this API obselete pretty quickly isn't it (already cause
of EJB actually).

Do we really want this feature at this price? If yes *AsyncObserves *sounds
an acceptable compromise but still will mess up the API IMO.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com>

2015-03-19 15:36 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net>:

> Hi guys,
>
>
> So it seems impossible to avoid opt-in on the observer side for the sake
> of awkward compatibility.
> Adding a member to @Observes could also be a source of issues when old CDI
> lib will be used with CDI 2.0 runtime. Some of us (including me) don’t want
> to add an @Async annotation to CDI spec, so perhaps we should add an async
> alternative to @Observes with an @AsyncObserves or @ObservesAsync ?
>
> So it would be
>
> public void myObserver(*@AsyncObserves* payload) {}
>
> instead of
>
> *@Async*
> public void myObserver(@Observes payload) {}
>
>
> Pros :
> - it’s a cleaner way to manage the opt-in than to put 2 annotations or add
> a member to an existing one
> - it could have new members related to async behavior (context
> propagation, concurrent scenario, etc…)
> - As it won’t be in legacy code no risk to see old observers called
> asynchronously
>
> Cons :
> - Still not clear for users when fire() is called to see @AsyncObserves
> launched synchronously
> - Yet another annotation added
>
> wdyt ?
>
> Antoine
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150319/2d7fde48/attachment.html