[cdi-dev] Concurrency Control

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2016-02-28 20:08 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <werner.keil at gmail.com>:

> Yes, there's no "incubating" stage for JSRs other than "not Final", so as
> soon as a JSR or parts of it are final, they become part of an umbrella
> spec if that spec wants to contain them.
>
> Potentially from Java EE 9 on there could be much finer grained activation
> or deactivation of features and profiles as soon as the whole Jigsaw thing
> and SE 9 is out, but until then I think we' have to stick to what's
> available right now.
>
> For CDI 2 modularity or running in Java SE are already in scope, but other
> than e.g. having "ee-concurrency" only in the Java EE profile of CDI, I
> don't see how CDI should do things the platform will provide later anyway.
>
>
Fully agree, means @Lock shouldnt go in CDI as everyone stated so falling
back on CDI cause concurrency spec is inactive is a bad choice. Question
leaves CDI list then and is: how to make concurrency active?


> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am unsure what this means. Firstly I think this functionality is way
>> overdue. Secondly I see little value to having anything that is a
>> pseudo-standard. I'd rather see the effort pursue another path to
>> standardization or remain completely independent while clearly pointing out
>> what the obstacles to standardization are/were.
>>
>> On the other hand if this is required to be implemented in Java EE 8
>> runtimes I don't think it matters what the particular structural gymnastics
>> are. Purely from a JCP standpoint, it is possible to have a
>> sub-specification but only if the eventual goal is to spin it out into a
>> separate specification. Examples of this are JPA, interceptors and others.
>> There is no precedent for an "incubator" specification that is somehow
>> optional. In fact I am pretty sure the current JCP rules would disallow
>> this.
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> At apache we have subprojects which can become top level project if they
>> behaves well. Would it be possible at EE level? Idea would be to have
>> cdi-concurrency subspec (under CDI umbrella but not part of CDI itself -
>> know there was appendix in bval for instance). Then for EE 9 if the subspec
>> is proven as good it would become its own spec. wdyt?
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> 2016-02-28 19:16 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>:
>>
>>>
>>> > Am 26.02.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Werner Keil <werner.keil at gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> > Reza/all,
>>> >
>>> > One of the biggest problems with Concurrency Utilities is, that it
>>> started in 2003, then went "dormant" (before the term existed) and was
>>> revived to be finalized 10 years later after little or no proper alignment
>>> with then state of the art Java EE standards and technologies. It
>>> duplicates things, especially in EJB or CDI.
>>> >
>>>
>>> +1 that pretty much sums it up. Concurrency utils is pretty much broken
>>> and unusable as it is today.  :/
>>>
>>> Anyway, let’s not fight the past - we need a way forward.
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160228/947312b7/attachment.html