ok with me too
Sergey
On 22/09/11 14:26, Marek Potociar wrote:
> Ok, I see. I deliberately decided to not include "async" in the name since it is really a "single request/response
> processing context" - e.g. we may ultimately find another use for it.
>
> ...but I don't insist on this name, although I find it ok.
>
> Marek.
>
> On 09/22/2011 11:32 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 21/09/11 16:41, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>> Hi Sergey,
>>> not sure I understand. Can you please elaborate?
>>>
>>
>> My understanding that ExecutionContext, as a new name for AsyncContext, is supposed to represent the context associated
>> with the async invocation. When I say write a client filter dealing with the sync invocation, I think the filter is
>> working on something associated with the current execution context, we have a current invocation and a given in
>> parameter is a property of that execution context. This is just the way I see it, so what I really meant is that
>> ExecutionContext is not very specific to the async invocations in my own mind at least
>> It's a good name though :-)
>> thanks, Sergey
>>
>>> Marek
>>>
>>> On 09/21/2011 03:48 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>> Hi Marek - may be that can interfere with any future enhancements to do with representing the current execution context,
>>>> which exists even for sync services...Just a thought,
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Sergey
>>>> On 21/09/11 11:16, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>>>> This was done to avoid the confusion with Servlet 3.x API. Let me know if you have any issues with that change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Marek
>>>>
--
Sergey Beryozkin
http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
Talend - http://www.talend.com