@Bruno: note that this is not what we are doing, I'm just mentionning that TomEE does not need that and that there is no need to put any pressure either on TomEE or Geronimo in such situation since everything is good on both side in current state.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le lun. 26 nov. 2018 à 17:05, Bruno Baptista <bruno...@gmail.com> a écrit : > It's just that I would expect to release 1.0.1 for a mater of principle. > > I think we shouldn't throw away an already approved valid contribution. > > Bruno Baptista > https://twitter.com/brunobat_ > > > On 26/11/18 13:53, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Le lun. 26 nov. 2018 à 14:48, Bruno Baptista <bruno...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > >> Hi Romain, > >> > >> We are holding other work with this discussion. > >> > >> Can we agree that this is good enough for a 1st version and move on with > >> a follow up PR?... It's not going to be worse than starting SE tasks > >> inside the container, like we have now. > >> > > As I said, while it is not released without being harnessed I'm happy > > without any way working for you. > > > > > >> Also, releasing Safegard 1.0.1 would be nice. There is unreleased code > >> in there that this work needs. We can live with the SNAPSHOT in the > >> meantime because there is no prediction of work for that SNAPSHOT. > >> > > I don't think there is anything needed, you can replace all that by a > > standard cdi extension if the snapshot is bothering you can use the last > > release. > > Just veto the default and override the impl, no? > > > > > >> Cheers. > >> > >> Bruno Baptista > >> https://twitter.com/brunobat_ > >> > >> > >> On 23/11/18 15:41, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >>> Le ven. 23 nov. 2018 à 16:34, Bruno Baptista <bruno...@gmail.com> a > >> écrit : > >>>> Hi Romain, > >>>> > >>>> About "The point is not the cdi bean but the executor. So high level > you > >>>> deploy an > >>>> app not using safeguard but it being present and you ensure the > >> container > >>>> has no executor resource instantiated (you will get one (the > facade))." > >>>> > >>>> Sorry Romain, I still don't understand how the code in the PR can > >>>> possible affect something not using the FT API or Safeguard in > >> particular. > >>> I think the code is ok but it uses assumptions which are likely not > >> obvious > >>> and it is not tested so next commit will break it - since this code > must > >> be > >>> reworked anyway - and you will not see it. > >>> So better to ensure the build guarantee all the outcome we want for end > >>> users. > >>> > >>> > >>>> In relation to the Managed executor... What you say makes sense but I > >>>> wonder how likely it is to happen and if it's enough to hold the PR. > Do > >>>> you have a custom executor example somewhere? > >>>> > >>> We have some in the core tests you can reuse. But long story short you > >> run > >>> your test, don't use safeguard and guarantee in @Test by looking up the > >>> resource directly using internals (SystemInstance > ContainerSystem and > >> so > >>> on) that the instance is not yet instantiated. See for a test doing > >> exactly > >>> that: > >>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/test/java/org/apache/openejb/assembler/classic/LazyResourceTest.java#L41 > >>> To summarize: > >>> > >>> 1. CDI is lazy > >>> 2. we define the default executor as being lazy > >>> 3. we assume safeguard will not impact an app not using it > >>> > >>> ==> you must ensure that 3 didnt trigger an executor creation, it is > fine > >>> to rely on 1+2 (which means so "main" code) > >>> > >>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> Bruno Baptista > >>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 23/11/18 15:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >>>>> Le ven. 23 nov. 2018 à 15:49, Bruno Baptista <bruno...@gmail.com> a > >>>> écrit : > >>>>>> Hi Romain, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for your comment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The class doing the resource injection is lazy loaded, specifically > >>>>>> /FailsafeContainerExecutionManagerProvider/. I did verify it in > >>>>>> development but no test was produced... And to say the truth I > >> wouldn't > >>>>>> know how to validate if a bean has already been loaded or not. Can > you > >>>>>> please provide a test example? > >>>>>> > >>>>> The point is not the cdi bean but the executor. So high level you > >> deploy > >>>> an > >>>>> app not using safeguard but it being present and you ensure the > >> container > >>>>> has no executor resource instantiated (you will get one (the > facade)). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Please explain what do you mean by "MP-fault-tolerance executor for > >> that > >>>>>> case if noone exists". It will exist, that's the whole purpose of > this > >>>>>> PR. Can you please provide an example where a > >>>>>> /ManagedScheduledExecutorService/ will not be present? > >>>>>> > >>>>> You can see it as "don't let it default to a random executor". This > is > >>>> the > >>>>> current behavior. So here is what can happen: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. The user doesnt use any executor -> it defaults -> it is ok > >>>>> 2. The user uses one or more executors for his app -> it defaults to > it > >>>> -> > >>>>> it messes up the app and does not have the expected setting > >>>>> > >>>>> Case 2 is important cause it can really make it not functional and > even > >>>>> lead to locks in some cases so better to not let it happen and just > >>>> create > >>>>> a safeguard executor if > >>>>> the user didnt specify he wants safeguard to use the executor > >>>>> "'mysafeguardexecutor". > >>>>> > >>>>> This is why the config is important and I mentionned it early even if > >> it > >>>> is > >>>>> not the most sexy part to do, I agree. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bruno Baptista > >>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 23/11/18 14:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >>>>>>>> It's lazily loaded, so no worries on that regard. > >>>>>>> What is "it" here? :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Conretely the bean instantiation yes cause it is normal scoped and > >> the > >>>>>>> resource too cause it is by default lazy in tomee (service-jar.xml) > >> but > >>>>>> it > >>>>>>> is worth a test that prevent regression on that behavior IMHO, I > >> didn't > >>>>>>> catch on in the PR. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Concretely in terms of container we can want to create a dedicated > >>>>>>> MP-fault-tolerance executor for that case if noone exists and the > >> user > >>>>>>> didn't specify one cause this default behavior (cumulated with > tomee > >>>>>>> defaulting on @Resouce) will make this not reliable which is quite > >>>>>>> ridiculous when you think about it for something about failt > >> tolerance. > >>>>>>> This is why it should be in before next release. Now if you do the > PR > >>>>>> next > >>>>>>> week it is fine, was not to do it today but to ensure it is not > >> merged > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>> the enthusiasm makes it forgotten. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >>>>>>> < > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >>>>>>> Le ven. 23 nov. 2018 à 15:18, Jonathan Gallimore < > >>>>>>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Maybe add those config options in a second PR? What do you think? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:01 PM Bruno Baptista < > bruno...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi Romain, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In the end I decided to simply use the server default, for now. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It will only be used if annotations are called in the code. It's > >>>> lazily > >>>>>>>>> loaded, so no worries on that regard. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Bruno Baptista > >>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 23/11/18 12:31, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Didnt you want to make the pool configurable and not > instantiated > >> if > >>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>> used? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Le ven. 23 nov. 2018 13:20, Daniel Cunha <daniels...@apache.org > > > >> a > >>>>>>>>> écrit : > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Bruno, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> awesome! It really sounds good! I just push my +1 :) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Em sex, 23 de nov de 2018 às 06:44, Bruno Baptista < > >>>>>>>> bruno...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> escreveu: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, I've requested a Safeguard 1.0.1 release. we > >>>> shouldn't > >>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>> using snapshots. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Baptista > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/11/18 19:30, Roberto Cortez wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool! Thank you. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll have a look. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Nov 2018, at 19:08, Bruno Baptista < > bruno...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the code is ready. Can some of you please review > this > >>>> pull > >>>>>>>>>>>> request: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/201 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Related to:TOMEE-2278 < > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2278>- > >>>>>>>>>>>> Use Managed Executor with Safeguard Fault Tolerance lib > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Baptista > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel "soro" Cunha > >>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dvlc_ > >>>>>>>>>>> >
