<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thank you Martin for pointing out CDI-582!
Then we should log comments on the jira. Maybe Atoine has a better suggestion
on how to handle this cross spec issue. Addressing the conversation access
timeout in CDI might be a step forward. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Many thanks,<br>
Emily<br>
===========================<br>
Emily Jiang<br>
WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> <br>
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN<br>
Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278<br>
<br>
Email: emijiang@uk.ibm.com <br>
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Martin Kouba <mkouba@redhat.com></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@lycos.com>, </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">26/02/2016 09:41</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [cdi-dev]
Concurrency Control</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Well, I don't like this approach. Seems like making
CDI an "EJB.next <br>
all-in-one spec". BTW there is already a JIRA issue [1]. Maybe a <br>
separate issue should be created for conversation access timeout.<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
[1]<br>
</font></tt><a href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-582"><tt><font size=2>https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-582</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
<br>
Dne 26.2.2016 v 10:32 Emily Jiang napsal(a):<br>
> Hi Reza,<br>
><br>
> I understand your frustration. I would suggest you raising a CDI jira
to<br>
> get all options discussed. Any objections?<br>
><br>
> Many thanks,<br>
> Emily<br>
> ===========================<br>
> Emily Jiang<br>
> WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead<br>
><br>
> MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN<br>
> Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278<br>
><br>
> Email: emijiang@uk.ibm.com<br>
> Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@lycos.com><br>
> To: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB,<br>
> Cc: cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> Date: 25/02/2016 23:01<br>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Concurrency Control<br>
> Sent by: cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org<br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This is not just a problem with this one feature but a much broader
one<br>
> involving @Asynchronous, @Schedule and many others. Simply punting
on<br>
> this problem and not dealing with this class of problems vigorously
is<br>
> rather foolish. It winds up doing what it has done for years -<br>
> undermining pretty much all efforts related to Java EE, especially<br>
> compared to the velocity and effectiveness by which the clear<br>
> competitors to everything Java EE solve these issues. In the end,
we are<br>
> collectively to blame for the dismal state of affairs in Java EE land<br>
> because of this sort of thing.<br>
><br>
> On Feb 25, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Emily Jiang <_EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> It would be nice if JavaEE Concurrency defines @Lock as a CDI<br>
> interceptor, similar to @Transactional . Since the JavaEE Concurrency<br>
> spec is stale as per you and Raze point out, how about experiment
in<br>
> DeltaSpike? If DeltaSpike provides the support of @Lock, maybe it
can be<br>
> pushed to JavaEE concurrency as part of EE8 update. If not, maybe
CDI<br>
> should define an addendum for EE integration. I think we should<br>
> seriously think about this.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Many thanks,<br>
> Emily<br>
> ===========================<br>
> Emily Jiang<br>
> WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead<br>
><br>
> MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN<br>
> Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278<br>
><br>
> Email: _emijiang@uk.ibm.com_ <</font></tt><a href=mailto:emijiang@uk.ibm.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:emijiang@uk.ibm.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>
> Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: Stephan Knitelius <_stephan@knitelius.com_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:stephan@knitelius.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:stephan@knitelius.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>><br>
> To: Reza Rahman <_reza_rahman@lycos.com_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:reza_rahman@lycos.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:reza_rahman@lycos.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>>,
Martin Kouba <_mkouba@redhat.com_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:mkouba@redhat.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:mkouba@redhat.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>>,<br>
> Cc: _cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_ <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>
> Date: 25/02/2016 20:26<br>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Concurrency Control<br>
> Sent by: _cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi Martin,<br>
><br>
> yes this particular issue is about concurrent access control. You
are<br>
> right in pointing out that the lock should be applied<br>
> to the whole been and only override-able on a per method basis (similar<br>
> to EJB Singleton style locking).<br>
><br>
> Regarding conversation context, its fair enough to point-out that
weld<br>
> allows for configure the conversation lock timeout.<br>
> However this is only true for Weld, this should really be made part
of<br>
> the specification.<br>
><br>
> Even if we were to specify a standard way to configure conversation<br>
> locked timeouts in the CDI specification, it would<br>
> still make the conversation scope the odd one out of the lot. Hence
it<br>
> would be more sensible to design a<br>
> common way to handle concurrent access.<br>
><br>
> Also I would argue that you cannot implement a common concurrent access<br>
> control via interceptors,<br>
> since the container will preempt any interceptor based attempt for<br>
> conversation scoped beans.<br>
><br>
> As Reza pointed out Oracle has no intend to reopen "Concurrency<br>
> Utilities for Java EE" at this time and is not<br>
> willing to hand it over to anyone else. The same seems to be true
for JTA.<br>
><br>
> Stephan<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 at 15:50 Reza Rahman <_reza_rahman@lycos.com_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:reza_rahman@lycos.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:reza_rahman@lycos.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>>
wrote:<br>
> Oracle has pretty much clearly stated it has absolutely no intention
of<br>
> updating the Java EE Concurrency Utilities specification any time
soon.<br>
> My guess is that it will also never allow anyone else to update it<br>
> either since it owns that specification. If this is a valuable feature<br>
> to the community (which I definitely think it is) I strongly suggest<br>
> taking advantage of the fact that this is a gray area and include
it in<br>
> a modular CDI specification so this feature doesn't continue to remain<br>
> locked into EJB for Java EE users that need to more effectively use<br>
> things like @Stereotype for service composition.<br>
><br>
> > On Feb 25, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Martin Kouba <_mkouba@redhat.com_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:mkouba@redhat.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:mkouba@redhat.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>>
wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Stephan,<br>
> ><br>
> > I like the idea of CDI interceptor solution you're proposing
in your<br>
> > blogpost [1]. However, concurrency is a difficult topic.
First of all,<br>
> > this only solves concurrent access to the bean instance
(i.e.<br>
> > method-level locking) - the bean state is always up to
the user. Also<br>
> > I'm not so sure it's a good idea to only apply @Lock at
the method level<br>
> > (some methods are guarded some not - AFAIK EJB does not
allow this<br>
> either).<br>
> ><br>
> > I agree that conversation concurrentAccessTimeout in Weld
should be<br>
> > configurable. In fact, it should be possible to change
this timeout even<br>
> > now using Weld API and org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.
But<br>
> > it should be definitely more straightforward [2].<br>
> ><br>
> > To sum it up - I wouldn't add concurrency control to the
spec provided<br>
> > it's implementable using interceptors. This is a similar
situation as to<br>
> > javax.transaction.Transactional and JTA. The best place
to specify this<br>
> > is IMHO "Concurrency Utilities for Java EE".<br>
> ><br>
> > Martin<br>
> ><br>
> > [1]<br>
> > _http://www.knitelius.com/2016/01/25/concurrency-control-for-cdi/_<br>
> ><br>
> > [2]<br>
> > _https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-2113_<br>
> ><br>
> > Dne 24.2.2016 v 20:47 Stephan Knitelius napsal(a):<br>
> >> I just want to bring this to everyone attention one
more time.<br>
> >><br>
> >> The conversation scope concurrency control mechanism
seems to be a<br>
> >> frequent point of pain in many projects.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Especially when working with browser triggered asynchronous
requests,<br>
> >> you can not rely on client-sided request synchronization.<br>
> >> Weld, unlike OWB, grants a 1 second timeout prior to
throwing a (the<br>
> >> specified) BusyConversationException mitigating the
effect a bit.<br>
> >><br>
> >> This is a rather strict un-configurable type of CC.
Also its<br>
> >> completely out of alignment with the other build-in
scopes, offering no<br>
> >> CC what so ever.<br>
> >><br>
> >> In the cases of Session- and Application-Scope, thread
handling is left<br>
> >> entirely to the developer, even so they are just as
vulnerable in AJAX<br>
> >> environments.<br>
> >><br>
> >> We should really consider introducing a common configurable
mechanism,<br>
> >> that is aligned across all scopes (obviously accounting
for backwards<br>
> >> compatibility in the case of conversation scope).<br>
> >><br>
> >> Would really appreciate some feedback.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Kind regards,<br>
> >><br>
> >> Stephan<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 at 23:10 Reza Rahman <_Reza.Rahman@oracle.com_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:Reza.Rahman@oracle.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:Reza.Rahman@oracle.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>
> >> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:_Reza.Rahman@oracle.com_><tt><font size=2>mailto:_Reza.Rahman@oracle.com_</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>
<</font></tt><a href=mailto:Reza.Rahman@oracle.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:Reza.Rahman@oracle.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >> We've discussed this issue before. I definitely
still think @Lock<br>
> >> belongs in a modular CDI specification.
It would be highly useful to<br>
> >> both @Singleton and @ApplicationScoped.
Today if I need to use<br>
> >> declarative concurrency control for a
shared component I am<br>
> >> essentially forced to use EJB singleton
- which shouldn't be the<br>
> >> case and perhaps should not have been
the case past Java EE 6.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >>> On 2/19/2016 5:27 AM, Stephan Knitelius
wrote:<br>
> >>> Hi all,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> CDI spec does not define a common
concurrency control mechanism.<br>
> >>> The time any type of concurrency control
is mentioned is in<br>
> >>> conjunction with EJB and a rather
restrictive one for conversation<br>
> >>> context.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> CDI Spec:<br>
> >>> The container ensures that a long-running
conversation may be<br>
> >>> associated with at most one request
at a time, by blocking or<br>
> >>> rejecting concurrent requests. If
the container rejects a request,<br>
> >>> it must associate the request with
a new transient conversation<br>
> >>> and throw an exception of<br>
> >>> type|javax.enterprise.context.BusyConversationException|.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> It would be helpful if a common configurable
concurrency mechanism<br>
> >>> (EJB Singleton style locking?) could
be established for all normal<br>
> >>> scopes.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> What are your thoughts on this?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Regards,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Stephan<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> ______________________________________<br>
> >>> *Stephan Knitelius*<br>
> >>> Alteburger Str. 274<br>
> >>> 50968 Köln / Cologne<br>
> >>> Deutschland / Germany<br>
> >>> _stephan@knitelius.com_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:stephan@knitelius.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:stephan@knitelius.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><</font></tt><a href=mailto:_stephan@knitelius.com_><tt><font size=2>mailto:_stephan@knitelius.com_</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> <</font></tt><a href=mailto:stephan@knitelius.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:stephan@knitelius.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> >>> _cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><</font></tt><a href="mailto:_cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_"><tt><font size=2>mailto:_cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>><br>
> >>> _https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev_<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Note that for all code provided on
this list, the provider<br>
> licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2<br>
> (_http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html_). For all other
ideas<br>
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> >> _cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_<br>
> <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><</font></tt><a href="mailto:_cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_"><tt><font size=2>mailto:_cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>><br>
> >> _https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev_<br>
> >><br>
> >> Note that for all code provided on this
list, the provider licenses<br>
> >> the code under the Apache License, Version
2<br>
> >> (_http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html_).
For all other<br>
> >> ideas provided on this list, the provider
waives all patent and<br>
> >> other intellectual property rights inherent
in such information.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> >> _cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_ <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>
> >> _https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev_<br>
> >><br>
> >> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
licenses<br>
> the code under the Apache License, Version 2<br>
> (_http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html_). For all other
ideas<br>
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Martin Kouba<br>
> > Software Engineer<br>
> > Red Hat, Czech Republic<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> > _cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_ <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>
> > _https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev_<br>
> ><br>
> > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
licenses<br>
> the code under the Apache License, Version 2<br>
> (_http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html_). For all other
ideas<br>
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
> intellectual property rights inherent in such<br>
> information._______________________________________________<br>
> cdi-dev mailing list_<br>
> __cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org_ <</font></tt><a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>_<br>
> __https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev_<br>
><br>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses
the<br>
> code under the Apache License, Version 2<br>
> (_http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html_). For all other
ideas<br>
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
><br>
> Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number<br>
> 741598.<br>
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6<br>
> 3AU_______________________________________________<br>
> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev"><tt><font size=2>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
><br>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses
the<br>
> code under the Apache License, Version 2<br>
> (</font></tt><a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html"><tt><font size=2>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>).
For all other ideas<br>
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
><br>
> Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number<br>
> 741598.<br>
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6 3AU<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
> cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev"><tt><font size=2>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
><br>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses
the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (</font></tt><a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html"><tt><font size=2>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>).
For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent
and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Martin Kouba<br>
Software Engineer<br>
Red Hat, Czech Republic<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cdi-dev mailing list<br>
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
</font></tt><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev"><tt><font size=2>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
<br>
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
code under the Apache License, Version 2 (</font></tt><a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html"><tt><font size=2>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>).
For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent
and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br>
<br>
</font></tt>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. <br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU<br>
</font>