[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: JSR 236
- From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@...>
- To: jsr342-experts@...
- Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: JSR 236
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:58:42 -0800
- List-id: <jsr342-experts.javaee-spec.java.net>
Pete Muir wrote on 02/12/13 06:37:
>>> * support injecting a default managed executor services using @Inject
>> This is just another example of the "default producers" issue we've
>> discussed, and which we decided not to address for this release, but would
>> like to address in the future.
> I would disagree. In some cases a default producer makes sense, in others it
> doesn't. Here it does, so we should support it. Just because something
> doesn't always make sense isn't a reason to never do it.
I agree. And I agree that we should support it, once we have a general
strategy for supporting default producers. There are other cases that
make sense as well, but that we deferred because we hadn't worked through
all the technical issues. I'd like to see us do that for EE 8.
>>> * Support for @Transactional as well as EJB transactions
>> I don't understand the issue here. I would expect that tasks support these
>> in the same way that other classes support them.
> Right, however the spec could show this.
I don't think the JSR 236 spec needs examples showing tasks doing all the
things that a Java EE application class can do.
Is there some reason you think it especially needs an example of
If you think there's any question about whether tasks can use transactions
at all, we could clarify that.