On Dec 12, 2003, at 14:01, David Jencks wrote:
I agree completely, and applied for the Work Management expert group. We'll see what happens:-)
Great! I've applied for the Timers EG. Hopefully we'll both get in. :-)
I applied as an individual. If anyone thinks it would be better to apply as a Geronimo or Apache representative please say so and explain why: I thought it would add administrative complexity without adding value.
I'd agree that it would for the most part only add administrative complexity. Applying as an Apache (or SUNY-Oswego) representative would only add flexibility in that the organization would 'own' the membership, so that if you needed to be 'offline' from the spec and wanted someone else in the project to be on the EG list, it would be relatively easy to do so. AFAIK Apache already is a JCP member so this shouldn't be a big deal.
So far I haven't reviewed the timer spec.
I read through it and I feel that it would better serve J2EE for it to be abstracted somewhat, primarily to handle various timer mechanisms. The input spec is a pretty good start but to best satisfy timer requirements in the enterprise space, I think it needs a bit more, even if, say one vendor or another might not use all types of timers.
Cheers,
-Charlton.
thanks david jencks
On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 01:50 PM, Charlton Barreto wrote:
Although at first I had my reservations about these specs, upon further review I believe they to be worthwhile efforts, and they should be carefully observed. I would like to see someone represent this community in either or both EGs, esp. the Work Manager group. With Work Management, a number of issues exist w.r.t. propagating transaction and security contexts between threads - managing run-as authentication and enabling concurrent propagation of a single transaction context immediately come to mind. With Timers, there are various issue with addressing timer thread management within a J2EE container in a general fashion. The spec proposals do not cover all of these, and if these specs can receive input and guidance from various experts, they can hopefully address thread and timer management within J2EE in a comprehensive manner.
On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 05:29 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Since these two JSRs were discussed here recently, I thought that there
might be some folks who would like to comment.
Please comment directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Lea
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 20:03
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [concurrency-interest] Executors and J2EE Work frameworks
We are still looking over integration issues with the proposed (but
not yet accepted) J2EE Work and Timer JSRs. If you have actually used
the BEA or IBM precursors of these proposed APIs, and have any experiences
or observations you'd like to tell us about, we'd be very happy to
hear of them, the sooner the better.
Again, they are at: http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=236 http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=237 Follow links near the bottom of each to see BEA and IBM's proposed APIs.
Thanks!
-Doug _______________________________________________ Concurrency-interest mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
