Pete Muir wrote on 02/11/13 02:25:
> 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.
(I didn't see a Cc on your original message.)
> * Support injecting into tasks (runnable and callable) using all
> types of injection - constructor, method and field
The JSR 236 implementation is not creating the task instances.
If you inject the task instance into your class, and then pass
that task instance to the JSR 236 API, that task instance can
make use of injection. Similarly, you could create that task
instance dynamically using the various CDI APIs and the task
instance can make use of injection.
> * support injecting a default managed executor services using @Inject
> natively
This is just another example of the "default producers" issue we've
discussed, and which we decided not to address for this release, but
would like to address in the future.
> * Show examples of using resource producers to map alternative
> managed executor services to CDI injection (as we normally do for
> @Resource)
I don't think we need every spec that defines a resource to reiterate
this CDI technique.
> * 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)
Yes, defining the CDI context for tasks is an open issue. And yes,
for now, it looks like they have only application context.
> * Support for @Transactional as well as EJB transactions
I don't understand the issue here. I would expect that tasks support
these in the same way that other classes support them.
> * 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)
As above.
> 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.
Thanks for the feedback!