From: Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:31:52 +0100

Pete,

Thanks a lot for the update.
I mentioned the lack of relationship and integration between CDI and
JSR-236 as one of its 2 main weaknesses when voting on 236. The other one
is license-related, but it seems to rather confirm your point of view on
that even by an Oracle Spec Lead and JSR (probably good[?])

Werner

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi Linda
>
> Apologies for the late reply.
>
> (1) It should be included in the full platform
> (2) Probably not.
>
> I've also had quite a few comments that the spec is missing CDI
> integration. I've cc'd David, our spec rep, so he can communicate
> this to the JSR-236 EG as well.
>
> * Support injecting into tasks (runnable and callable) using all
> types of injection - constructor, method and field
> * support injecting a default managed executor services using @Inject
> natively
> * Show examples of using resource producers to map alternative
> managed executor services to CDI injection (as we normally do for
> @Resource)
> * Support propagation or creation of new CDI contexts for tasks,
> mapping section 2.3 to CDI contexts as appropriate (looks to me like
> just the application context)
> * Support for @Transactional as well as EJB transactions
> * support injecting a default managed scheduled executor services
> using @Inject natively
> * Show examples of using resource producers to map alternative
> managed scheduled executor services to CDI injection (as we normally
> do for @Resource)
> * Show examples of using resource producers to map context services
> to CDI injection (as we normally do for @Resource)
> * support injecting a default managed thread factory using @Inject
> natively
> * Show examples of using resource producers to map alternative
> managed thread factories to CDI injection (as we normally do for
> @Resource)
>
> With these changes, I think this will be a really excellent set of
> services for Java EE, and fill a big gap in the programming model
> for users.
>
> It would also be interesting to explore the relationship between CDI
> events and JSR-236 in the future.
>
> I really like the spec overall, particularly as it's really focused
> on not reinventing the wheel, but on trying to stick to existing
> designs as close as possible.
>
> Pete
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:23, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
>
> >
> > We are very pleased to see that the JSR-236 Expert Group has made
> > excellent progress and JSR-236 is now in the JCP Public Review phase.
> >
> > At this point, we expect that JSR-236 will meet our target dates for
> > inclusion into Java EE 7. JSR-236 is an obvious candidate for inclusion
> > in the full Java EE Platform, and we believe that it should be.
> >
> > Pleases let us know:
> >
> > (1) Whether you see any reason that JSR 236 should not be included in
> > the full platform?
> >
> > (2) Whether you think that JSR 236 should also be included in the Web
> Profile?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > -Linda
>
>