[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: JSR 236
- From: Pete Muir <pmuir@...>
- To: jsr342-experts@...
- Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: JSR 236
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:35:00 +0000
- List-id: <jsr342-experts.javaee-spec.java.net>
On 14 Feb 2013, at 00:58, Bill Shannon wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>>> 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.
Right, this is the reason I am suggesting it.