Thanks, Nathan!
The updated list of items to be removed would be:
- section 3.5 of the spec
- section 4 of the spec
- DISTRIBUTABLE_HINT in ManagedTask interface, and
- getIdentityDescription(Locale) method of ManagedTask interface
- Run Location configuration attribute in sections 3.1.3.1.1 and
3.2.3.1.1 of the spec
Regards
Anthony
On 1/22/13 11:31 AM, Nathan Rauh wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> I'm fine with that.
> As part of removing Managed Object, I would recommend that we remove
> the getIdentityDescription(Locale) method of ManagedTask for now,
> which I believe is only there for Managed Object.
> That gives us flexibility to come up with a better alternative to that
> method by the time a future version of the specification adds Managed
> Object back in.
>
>
> Nathan Rauh
> ____________________________________________
> Software Engineer, WebSphere Application Server
> IBM Rochester Bldg 002-2 C111
> 3605 Highway 52N
> Rochester, MN 55901-7802
>
>
>
> From: Anthony Lai <anthony.lai_at_oracle.com>
> To: jsr236-experts_at_concurrency-ee-spec.java.net
> Date: 01/22/2013 12:46 PM
> Subject: [jsr236-experts] Removing optional features from spec
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Dear Experts,
>
> I was informed that the reference implementation is required to
> implement all features including those that are marked as optional in
> the spec. However, due to the limited resources and tight schedules I do
> not think I would be able to implement the optional features in the
> reference implementation within the Java EE 7 timeline, which could
> result in the JSR missing the Java EE 7 release schedule.
>
> Thus I am proposing that we would remove the optional features of
> "Distributable ManagedExecutorService" and "Managed Object" from this
> version of the spec.
>
> Specifically, I am proposing to remove from the spec
> - section 3.5
> - section 4
> - DISTRIBUTABLE_HINT in ManagedTask interface, and
> - Run Location configuration attribute in sections 3.1.3.1.1 and 3.2.3.1.1
>
> We could add them back in future versions of Concurrency Utilities
> specifications.
>
> Thanks for understanding.
>
> Regards
> Anthony
>
>