The Executor Service was added by Doug Lea in Java 5.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ExecutorService.html
However, in Java 7 he put in the much improved Fork Join Pool... which extends
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.html
He then back-ported capability to Java 7 and Java 6 from the enhanced Java 8
implementation:
http://g.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest/
However, the backport uses different packaging which makes things a bit awkward
from a Framework perspective.
_Marvin
-----Original Message-----
From: John D. Ament [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Arne Limburg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] CdiManagedRunnable
Are you thinking that this includes an executor service impl?
Wouldn't we need to jump to java 7?
John
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:05 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I always thought a CDI frienly executor service would be nice so +1
> for ds Le 19 sept. 2015 01:32, "Thomas Andraschko"
> <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> > 1+ romain
> > But wdyt about adding something to DS for JEE6/7 users?
> >
> > 2015-09-19 9:23 GMT+02:00 Arne Limburg <[email protected]>:
> >
> > > +1
> > > I really thought the same, when I read that proposal.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arne
> > >
> > > Von meinem Samsung Gerät gesendet.
> > >
> > >
> > > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
> > > Datum: 18.09.2015 16:28 (GMT+01:00)
> > > An: [email protected]
> > > Cc: Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]>
> > > Betreff: Re: [Proposal] CdiManagedRunnable
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I like the idea but isnt it close enough of concurrency utilities
> > > to
> kind
> > > of put it in this spec? There is this proxy factory which
> > > could/should support scopes IMO.
> > >
> > > CDI has few thread requirements which is good IMO so I would put
> > > it in
> > the
> > > "thread" spec.
> > >
> > > Romain
> > > Le 18 sept. 2015 07:23, "Martin Kouba" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > >
> > > > I think it's a good idea. Weld has a similar API [1], except
> > > > it's
> > focused
> > > > solely on the "thread-local-based context". We are also
> > > > considering
> the
> > > use
> > > > of an interceptor to active/deactivate the ThreadContext per
> > > > business method invocation [2].
> > > >
> > > > I wonder, whether this should be standardized in CDI 2.0. It
> > > > seems to
> > me
> > > > that CDI SE lacks some built-in contexts. Unlike Java EE where
> > > > the
> > > built-in
> > > > scopes align with the lifecycle of EE components
> > > > (@RequestScoped, @SessionScoped, etc.).
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/latest/en-US/html/environments.ht
> ml#_thread_context
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-1905
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dne 10.9.2015 v 18:02 Thomas Andraschko napsal(a):
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> it's often required to manual activate scopes in a async
> > > threads/runnables
> > > >> if you don't use JavaEE 7.
> > > >> I already used this in 3-4 projects in the last 3 years.
> > > >>
> > > >> My current API looks like:
> > > >>
> > > >> CdiManagedRunnable - A abstract class with implements Runnable
> > > >> and
> > > starts
> > > >> the RequestScoped via ContextControl and a new scope called
> > ThreadScope
> > > >> RequestScoped is optional,
> CdiManagedRunnable#isRequestScopedSupported
> > > >> return false per default and can be overwritten by the user.
> > > >>
> > > >> ThreadContext - A AbstractContext implementation which a static
> static
> > > >> ThreadLocal<ContextualStorage>
> > > >>
> > > >> ThreadContextExtension
> > > >> ThreadScoped
> > > >>
> > > >> WDYT? Is this useful for other people too?
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Thomas
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > --
> > > > Martin Kouba
> > > > Software Engineer
> > > > Red Hat, Czech Republic
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
