I'm good with all of that. Except we do use cayenne-web (stateless). It's not a lot of code so we could pull it in and keep our own copy, but I wonder how many people are using it. We're not defining the serverRuntime in web.xml (which would be a bit limiting and clunky), but otherwise I like the convenience it provides for using cayenne in a servlet environment.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:29 AM Andrus Adamchik <aadamc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree. Though I suggest to keep it in the current untested mode for > another cycle. Let's officially deprecate it in 5.0 and see if we get any > feedback. > > Andrus > > > On Jul 7, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Nikita Timofeev <ntimof...@objectstyle.com> > wrote: > > > > Code itself is small and easy to maintain, as it doesn't do much. We > > just don't have a proper test suit for it and I'm sure not all Cayenne > > modules are compatible with OSGI, at least we have some non-unque > > packages (partially this would be resolved once we drop bunch of > > deprecated modules), > > If we keep it as is, is not much of a problem, I just don't like those > > parts with unknown state. > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 7:02 PM Andrus Adamchik <aadamc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 5, 2022, at 2:00 PM, Nikita Timofeev <ntimof...@objectstyle.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Id like to add OSGi support to that removal list as well. > >> > >> OSGi support was developed in response to a user request (should be > somewhere in the mailing list archives). I have no idea if anyone is still > using it, and I am generally unclear on the state of OSGi these days. So > how hard is it to keep it around? > >> > >> Andrus > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Nikita Timofeev > >
