Hi,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Antonio Goncalves <
antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> And why not having pooling (and scheduling but that's another story) going
> to the Java EE Concurrency spec (implemented with CDI of course). It would
> be then even usable on CDI beans.
>
As discussed earlier, this too would be a very good development.
Things like @Stateless, @Asynchronous, @Timer/_at_Timeout don't have official
CDI alternatives. If we don't take advantage of the current spec cycle to
move more things to CDI, it will be a very long and slow process indeed.
To be honest, none of my customers use EJBs anymore. Having new development
> done in the EJB spec is a bit of a waste I think.
>
If there were CDI replacements for all of them, then it would be less
needed. But as long as EJBs still have unique features not available in
Java EE in other ways, then those tiny enhancements would surely help.
> Antonio
> Le 18 janv. 2016 16:34, "Abhishek Gupta" <abhirockzz_at_gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Definitely +1. Good to see some EJB related discussions :-)
>>
>> The above mentioned annotations would help
>>
>> 1. Tune EJBs in a standard manner
>> 2. Sending across a clear message w.r.t one of the most important EJB
>> features e.g. @Stateless does not really say that you also have throtlling
>> & pooling capabilities (one needs to mention it explicitly)
>>
>> I also suggest including another annotation: *_at_javax.ejb.InitialPoolSize*.
>> This will aid in eager initialisation (just like Singleton EJBs) and ensure
>> having enough firepower 'in the tank' to begin with
>>
>> Thanks
>> Abhishek
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Abhishek
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Latest (mini) book <https://leanpub.com/ejb-annotations-primer> ! | Java
>> Caching Refcard <https://dzone.com/refcardz/java-caching> | Java EE Blog
>> <https://abhirockzz.wordpress.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:36 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Pool settings as well as an @TransactionTimeout would be quite handy
>>> indeed.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:58 AM, <johan_at_lodgon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> This really can save lots of boilerplate code in projects.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>