[cdi-dev] Recap of Context Management (CDI-30) hangout meeting
antoine at sabot-durand.net
Thu Sep 29 05:57:39 EDT 2016
That's also my choice:
We should provide 2) for advance usage and consistency sake if we go for
Session context control later AND we should provide 1) for an easy usage of
A well written JavaDoc should prevent confusion between both approach.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com> wrote:
> Dne 29.9.2016 v 11:16 Antoine Sabot-Durand napsal(a):
> > Hi all,
> > Just to sum up what was said during our Tuesday Hangout meeting. For
> > those who were present feel free to correct or amend this.
> > Controlling Request Context is something rather easy (because it's
> > linked to one thread) while Session Context is far less obvious (used
> > across multiple threads) so providing a generic solution to deal with
> > their control seems quite complicated.
> > That's why we decided to start addressing the Request Context control
> > first and if we fell happy with that, continue the work on the Session
> > Context.
> > Public API to control the request context could be design in 2 different
> > ways:
> > 1) provide an interceptor to activate request context during the
> > intercepted method invocation
> This approach is also not always usable in some integration use cases
> where the request cannot be simply "wrapped in a single method call".
> For instance, in Quartz scheduler you can register a job listener with
> methods jobToBeExecuted(), jobExecutionVetoed() and jobWasExecuted() -
> here the approach 2) would make sense. On the other hand, you could
> implement a JobFactory so that Job instances are beans (or at least
> instances obtained and injected from an InjectionTarget) and simply
> associate interceptor binding for its execute() method.
> > 2) provide a programmatic API accessible thru a bean (like the
> > Conversation bean)
> > First solution is probably the easiest way for end user (to avoid not
> > ended context), but if we go for controlling Session Scope we won't be
> > able to provide a simple interceptor for it and will design something
> > like solution 2 for it.
> > So the question is should we go for 1 or 2 or both (with a risk of
> > confusion) ?
> I think that both ways are legal and make sense.
> > Thanks for your feedback
> > 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...
More information about the cdi-dev