Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
2016-12-20 10:26 GMT+01:00 Matej Novotny <[email protected]>: > Not sure I am following you - how would you fix this then? > > If you now take DS (master), and upgrade the CDI to 2.0.Beta1. Then have > your JAVA_HOME point at 1.8 JDK. > Try to compile (I ran Weld build ofc, so "mvn clean install -PWeld3 > -Dweld.version=3.0.0.Beta1" but anything will do). > This gives you a bunch of compilation errors in `deltaspike-core-api` such > as: > > [ERROR] /home/manovotn/GitRepo/deltaspike/deltaspike/core/ > api/src/main/java/org/apache/deltaspike/core/util/metadata/builder/ > AnnotatedParameterImpl.java:[29,0] error: AnnotatedParameterImpl is not > abstract and does not override abstract method <T>getAnnotations(Class<T>) > in Annotated > [ERROR] where T is a type-variable: > [ERROR] T extends Annotation declared in method <T>getAnnotations(Class<T>) > > This is because CDI added default methods to interfaces which you > implement. > Unless I set -source and -target to 1.8 both, there is no way it sees the > default method. > > this way, adding a variable for source and target and -Djava.compilation.version=xxx Or simply compiling with java 6 and running with java 8 tests - this supposes weld is able to handle it but if not compatibility is broken which is not an option for an EE spec. > Matej > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: "Martin Kouba" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:36:26 AM > > Subject: Re: DS and CDI 2.0? > > > > Hi Matej, > > > > about running DS it should be fine with a jdk 8 (or maven toolchain using > > java 6 to compile and 8 to run for weld 3 tests) > > > > About CDI 2.0 I think it is a bit early and discussions - IIRC - didnt > lead > > to any feature yet, just a "if we are blocked on 1 we can do a 2" but > > nothing yet motivating it. That said time is the only blocker if we find > > any feature deeply requiring CDI 2. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > rmannibucau> > > | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > > 2016-12-20 9:33 GMT+01:00 Matej Novotny <[email protected]>: > > > > > Hello > > > > > > Since we got CDI 2.0 knocking on the door, I wanted to ask what are the > > > plans for DS in this regard? > > > > > > ATM CDI 2.0.Beta1 is out and Weld 3.0.0.Beta1 will follow shortly. > > > I tried building DS and running tests (with the above^) just out of > habit, > > > but I realized that won't work. > > > Currently, DS has compilation source/target set to 1.6 and CDI 2.0 uses > > > default methods hence requiring 1.8. > > > > > > So before rushing into any duck tape fixing, I would like to know, what > > > are the plans? > > > I recall there was some mail discussion about new branch, but I don't > > > think there was any outcome. > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > Matej > > > > > >
