+1 as well.
Having async invocation would be great.
If we consider David's proposal (
http://java.net/jira/browse/EJB_SPEC-26),
that can be managed as services (Transaction for example).
Jean-Louis
2011/11/2 Adam Bien <abien_at_adam-bien.com>
> +1 for timeout.
>
> It would be also important to have "MaxNumberOfConcurrentRequests" -
> otherwise you could easily overtax (hack) the server
> On 28.09.2011, at 09:55, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
> No, asynch servlet does not really implement the comet style, it's just an
> easy way to do asynchronous calls in a different thread. Like Pete I
> think it's a shame to have different ways of doing asynchrnoy (asyncSupported
> = true in Servlet and Asynchronous elsewhere)... but I'm sure there's a
> reason. What asynch servlets also have is a timeout (asyncSupported = true,
> asyncTimeout = 3000). It could also be interesting to have a timeout
> attribute on @Asynchronous, what do you think ?
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 22:50, Rick Hightower <richardhightower_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Well said. Not sure if the async Servlets is the same beast though. Isn't
>> that dealing with Comet type stuff?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk>wrote:
>>
>>> This, for me, makes it even more important. There is nothing a developer
>>> hates more than learning 3 ways to do the same thing!
>>>
>>> On 27 Sep 2011, at 18:30, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'm not sure it'll be straight forward to add support for all managed
>>> beans - servlets and Web services already define their own approach to an
>>> asynchronous processing...
>>> >
>>> > -marina
>>> >
>>> > Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>>> >> Like Pete I would like to see @Asynchronous in managed beans.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:46, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk<mailto:
>>> pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I would like to see this too. However I see this only as a first
>>> >> step and would also like to add this to the list of services to
>>> >> extract entirely so they can be used in managed beans (similar to
>>> >> interceptors and our discussions around declarative transactions).
>>> >>
>>> >> Pete
>>> >>
>>> >> On 27 Sep 2011, at 02:19, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > This was also voted for by 2 experts. Would anybody else like to
>>> >> see this change in EJB 3.2?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > thanks,
>>> >> > -marina
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Antonio Goncalves
>>> >> Software architect and Java Champion
>>> >>
>>> >> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter <
>>> http://twitter.com/agoncal> | Blog <
>>> http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> | LinkedIn <
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG <http://www.parisjug.org
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Rick Hightower*
>> (415) 968-9037
>> Profile <http://www.google.com/profiles/RichardHightower>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
> Blog <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal>| Paris
> JUG <http://www.parisjug.org/>
>
>
>
>