jsr236-experts@concurrency-ee-spec.java.net

[jsr236-experts] Re: New ContextService API proposal from JSR 359 spec lead

From: binod pg <binod.pg_at_oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:27:09 +0530

Even the resource-ref/component specific JNDI name approach doesn't
break portability.
Also, I was hoping that the duty of restricting the number of MES is
with the product
rather than the specification.

In any case, SIP will need to define two JNDI names, right? One for
ManagedExecutorService
and another for ManagedScheduledExecutorService.

thanks,
Binod.

On 3/7/2013 4:15 AM, frowe_at_us.ibm.com wrote:
> Absolutely, there are two reasons. One, it allows for portability but
> more importantly, configuration by exception. In other words, if my
> SIP application needs to lookup the SIP-specific MES, I can expect to
> find it at the proscribed location in JNDI, if its not there, there's a
> problem.
> Two, there is a single jndi name because there is a single SIP-specific
> MES. The intent of JSR236 was not to proliferate instances of MES in
> the appserver as it makes it difficult to centrally manage thread
> pooling.