[cdi-dev] inheritance of cdi scopes

Sun Mar 6 14:15:58 EST 2016

2016-03-06 19:42 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>:

> This frankly surprises me. I'll check the specification text. This might
> indeed just be an implementation bug. The EE concurrency utilities are
> supposed to be copying all relevant context. If this is an issue than it
> has to be that it is not copying enough of the HTTP request context for CDI
> to work.
>
>
The issue is not technical since I got it working but needed to reverse.
>From my understanding ee concurrency utilities was done in a time CDI was
not there so it just ignored it somehow and it hasnt been updated when
integrated to the spec. Now with the wording of the CDI - and TCK - it is
impossible to make it working since request scope is bound the thre request
thread - and not the request. Side note: same applies to session scope and
conversation.


> Surely the Red Hat folks can quickly shed some light here since they
> implement essentially this whole stack?
>
> On Mar 6, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 2016-03-06 19:20 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>
>> Can you kindly try to make the example a bit simpler? It's important to
>> make the case for how likely this is supposed to occur in most business
>> applications.
>>
>> Also, other than making sure that the executor service is propagating
>> thread local request contexts correctly what other solution are you
>> proposing? Did you check the specification? How sure are you that this
>> isn't simply an implementation bug?
>>
>> As far as I know the executor service is supposed to be preserving all
>> relevant parts of the EE context?
>>
>>
> Not in concurrency-utilities for EE at least. That was the first impl I
> did then Mark pointed out it was violating CDI spec and request scope
> definition. There is a kind of contracdiction there cause
> concurrency-utilities doesn't integrate with CDI at all but we can also see
> it the opposite way: CDI doesn't provide any way to propagate a context in
> another thread. Both point of view are valid so we need to see where we
> tackle it.
>
>
>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> does https://gist.github.com/rmannibucau/d55fce47b001185dca3e help?
>>
>> Idea is to give an API to make:
>>
>> public void complete() {
>> try {
>> asyncContext.complete();
>> } finally {
>> auditContext.end();
>> }
>> }
>>
>> working without hacky and almost impossible context pushing (cause of
>> injections nature you are not supposed to know what to push in the context
>> when going async).
>>
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> 2016-03-06 16:40 GMT+01:00 Reza Rahman <reza_rahman at lycos.com>:
>>
>>> Can you kindly share an annotated code example of the proposed solution
>>> so we can all follow and discuss this?
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
>>> wroteshar:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> spoke on concurrency utilities about the ability to inherit a cdi scope.
>>> Idea is to follow request scope more than cdi spec allows. First thought it
>>> was a concurrency utilities thing but Reza mentionned can be a CDI one so
>>> here it is.
>>>
>>> Sample:
>>> In a servlet i get MyBean which is @RequestScoped, I do some set on it.
>>> The i go async (AsyncContext) and trigger a task in another thread. It
>>> would be neat - and mandatory in some case by the loose coupling nature of
>>> CDI - to get the *same* MyBean *instance* in this thread. With a direct
>>> dependency you can easily use message passing pattern - but you loose the
>>> loose coupling cause you need to know until which level you unwrap, think t
>>> principal case which has 2-3 proxies!. However in practice you have a lot
>>> of undirect dependencies, in particular with enterprise concerns (auditing,
>>> security...) so you can't really do it easily/naturally.
>>>
>>> Bonus:
>>> One very verbose way is to be able to kind of push/pop an existing
>>> context in a thread - wrappers doing it on a Runnable/Consumer/Function/...
>>> would be neat.
>>>
>>> Question:
>>> Would CDI handle it in 2.0?
>>>
>>> Side note: this is really about the fact to reuse a "context context"
>>> (its current instances map) in another thread the more transparently
>>> possible and match the user vision more than a technical question for now.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160306/2f81cea4/attachment-0001.html