I will not claim that I understand very much :), but seems interesting technically and I have to read the specs to get more idea. But there is onething IBM WAS has an extended feature called Async Bean (http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wasinfo/v6r1/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.websphere.nd.multiplatform.doc/info/ae/ae/welc6tech_asb.html)and it does not work that way. Well I don't claim either that I know much about in details but I know that it does not work that way. I think we need to look into both approaches and see which is better to support in OpenEJB. I will do this as I want to read more about it and more about the JEE concurrency. But more than one brain is better :D.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 6, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:25 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>> >>>> Is there something similar in the ee concurrency spec? >>> >>> Never heard of that spec. Do you have any details? >> >> Here's some info on the spec: >> >> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrencyee-interest/index.html >> >> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=236 >> >> and in Geronimo (trunk) we have a basic implementation of the draft spec. > > Interesting. It would be nice if there were something like this for the > client side. One big I issue I see with EJB async methods is there is no > way to be notified when the result of an async method is ready. This API is > very close to being what we would need. Specifically this method on > ManagedExecutorService: > > submit(Callable<T> task, ManagedTaskListener taskListener) > > which adds a task to run with a listener for it's completion. For async > result support we would need something like this: > > waitForResult(Future<?> future, ManagedTaskListener taskListener) > > of maybe > > submit(new WaitForCallable(myFuture), taskListener) > > If the future instance implemented a special "notifiable" interface, the > Executor service would simply add the listener to the future. If it didn't > implement that interface, it would use a thread to block (or periodically > poll) for the result. > > Something like this would allow users to write efficient and spec compliant > async clients. > > David (Jencks), are you working on this spec? Any chances on getting > something like this in? > > -dain > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour
