Agreed, do you want to add that module?  And if so you can add a priority
annotation to enable it by default.  Would then also be good to add a test
in an app server then.

John


On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 06:46 Bruno Baptista <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've updated the PR: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/pull/2
>
> Now... we should probably change the project structure and have an *impl*
> artifact for Java SE and another one for the enterprise edition, using the
> different *ExecutionManagerProvider* implementations.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Cheers
> Bruno Baptista
> http://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
>
> On 03/10/2018 18:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>
> Thanks John and Romain,
>
> Will work on the new FailsafeExecutionManagerProvider.
>
> Cheers
> Bruno Baptista
> http://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 03/10/2018 18:21, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno
>
> Thanks for the PR!
>
> I think my intention for what's provided in Safeguard is that we have an
> overideable per container integration that allows you to look up the
> executor.  So rather than having boolean logic, you use a new
> implementation of FailsafeExecutionManagerProvider (perhaps as an
> alternative).  This way the lookup can be done based on how your platform
> is developed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:53 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> yes, this is why I mentionned to make the pool configurable to make it
>> work in both environment and in multiple apps with different pool.
>>
>> Out of my head I thought about making it injectable instead of trying all
>> possible strategies/relying on a system properties but I just realized that
>> we already support SE and EE with managed pool, just make a @Specializes of 
>> FailsafeExecutionManagerProvider
>> producer.
>>
>> It sounds to me more flexible and easier to understand.
>>
>> wdyt?
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 3 oct. 2018 à 11:39, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Romain,
>>>
>>> I've updated the PR to get the resource location from a property.
>>> In relation to the try/catch... I'm assuming that the library is
>>> supposed to work with both SE and EE environments, if we don't catch the
>>> exception this will never work on SE. In any case, if an error exists, it
>>> will be printed and can be found.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> http://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/10/2018 10:10, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno,
>>>
>>> Technically this pool does not "have to be" managed ;).
>>>
>>> That said this is a good feature. Can you make the pool configurable
>>> instead of hardcoding the default pool which is never used except in tests?
>>> Will also avoid to catch and silently ignore the error (can be an issue in
>>> servers).
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 3 oct. 2018 à 10:58, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Safegard creates a java se connection pool to handle the bulckhead and
>>>> async operations. When deployed in a container, that pool has to be
>>>> managed.
>>>>
>>>> I created a PR that allows to retrieve that managed pool, if available:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/pull/2
>>>>
>>>> Can someone please take a look at it?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> http://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>

Reply via email to