Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Tomitribe commitment to EE4J

When I/others suggested this to the CDI EG in the past, they resisted for what seemed to me like non-technical reasons. Maybe they will change their mind this time and see reason. We can hope. Other than CDI, I don't even see where else @PoolScoped would fit.

I don't actually mind just throwing it in with the rest into Java EE Concurrency. What matters is making the functionality available to end users in the end.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/14/17 3:59 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Tomitribe commitment to EE4J


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:07 PM, reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Personally I think @Pooled/@PoolScoped is best in CDI. The remainder of the EJB functionality can be pretty cleanly farmed out between Java EE Concurrency and JMS/JCA.

Despite the fact that we seem to want to make CDI somewhat smaller, I think this is indeed a very good suggestion. Thx! @Pooled feels basic enough to warrant being in CDI core indeed.

Things like the build-in beans for Principal and HttpServletRequest should really be moved to the specifications that own these artefacts in the first place. I already proposed for Java EE Security taking ownership of the Principal build-in bean.

Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms


Back to the top