Skip to main content

[jsr236-spec users] [jsr236-experts] Fwd: Feedback

  • From: Anthony Lai < >
  • To:
  • Subject: [jsr236-spec users] [jsr236-experts] Fwd: Feedback
  • Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:25:58 -0800
  • List-id: <jsr236-experts.concurrency-ee-spec.java.net>

Just realized that this mail may not have sent to the expert group mailing list either.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Feedback
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:46:22 +0200
From: Adam Bien ">< >
To: ">


HI *,

I read the proposal and probably found some problems / inconsistencies (or completely misunderstood that :-)).

I incorporated the comments into the PDF--see attachment.

Summary of my comments:
1. DI of resources into manually created tasks won't work, or has to be performed by the pools. We should clarify that.
2. We should rely more on Convention over Configuration. It means: injection should work without any XML configuration.
3. I would reduce the scope and start with the injection of plain Executor services managed by the container. It would already solve about 80% of challenges from my projects.
4. Often mentioned "Container Context" is not clearly defined. I guess TX are not covered by the definition. Otherwise a in EJB initiated TX could be propagated into an asynchronous task...
5. We should reduce optional things. E.g. jndi names etc. should be mandatory--otherwise the suggestions are worthless. I would reduce the scope of the whole spec to mandatory services, and discuss the optional things later.

Please see my comments in the PDF,

thanks!

adam





Attachment: EE Concurrency Utilities-Aug6-a.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document



[jsr236-spec users] [jsr236-experts] Fwd: Feedback

Anthony Lai 11/05/2012
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close