[concurrency-interest] Executors and J2EE Work frameworks

Charlton Barreto charlton_b@mac.com
Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:31:41 -0800

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.



> 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 concurrency-interest@altair.cs.oswego.edu.
>>> 	--- Noel
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: concurrency-interest-admin@cs.oswego.edu
>>> [mailto:concurrency-interest-admin@cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Doug 
>>> Lea
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 20:03
>>> To: concurrency-interest@altair.cs.oswego.edu
>>> 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
>>> Concurrency-interest@altair.cs.oswego.edu
>>> http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest