Well, I'm willing to fix some OSGi issues... and I was thinking about Geronimo, not all OSGi related issues in the world ;-)
In particular, ensuring OWB works in OSGi is a big task, for which I don't have enough time unfortunately... I did some work some time ago on pax-cdi RC2, but the OSGi EEG is going a simplistic way for the CDI/OSGi integration (well, simplistic in terms of OSGi capabilities) and the RI is developped at Aries, though I think it's currently using Weld. Anyway, I'll have a closer look this very bundle soon. If you have pointers to other individual jars you want me to look at, let me know. 2017-06-27 14:55 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>: > I agree. If you could fixing the OSGi issues that'd be great. > > In addition to OWB, Meecrowave could also benefit from it. > BTW, if we could check and validate the transaction spec, that'd be > fantastic. > > > Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 14:38, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit : > >> txs and ping :D >> >> Nah, seriously, we are in the process of releasing OWB-2.0 _very_ soon. >> OWB already passes the CDI 2.0 TCK! >> >> So it would be really great if you could take a look and help us with >> OSGi support! >> It would be awesome if OWB would 'just work' in Karaf and other ASF OSGi >> projects! >> >> txs and LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>: >> > >> > Changing my vote to +1. >> > >> > And feel free to ping me when preparing a release so that I can have a >> look at the OSGi stuff. >> > >> > 2017-06-27 14:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: >> > +1 >> > >> > We should also fix the point John raised. >> > John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a >> ticket and commit it? :D >> > >> > @Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and >> me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;) >> > >> > >> > That reminds we that the osgi module in OWB surely also needs some >> proper review. >> > It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since. >> > So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.) >> works at all these days ;) >> > >> > txs and LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we >> had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be >> well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too. >> > > >> > > I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more >> recent versions of OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it? >> > > >> > > >> > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory >> > > >> > > 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: >> > > I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for >> SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider. >> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/ >> geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/ >> SeContainerInitializer.java#L47 >> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/ >> geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/ >> inject/spi/CDI.java#L54 >> > > >> > > I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on >> TCCL. >> > > >> > > John >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >> wrote: >> > > Hi Guillaume! >> > > >> > > I totally agree, but does this really block this release? >> > > I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the >> versions. >> > > Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far >> not enough? >> > > >> > > Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then >> ship some patches which improve OSGi support? >> > > I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans. >> > > But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release >> again imo, isn't? >> > > >> > > LieGrue, >> > > strub >> > > >> > > > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>: >> > > > >> > > > -0 >> > > > >> > > > It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi >> compatible way or not include OSGi support. The current state (OSGi >> metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho. >> > > > >> > > > 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: >> > > > Hi! >> > > > >> > > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar >> in version 1.0 >> > > > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and >> is binary compatible with the official artifact (signature comparison >> passed). >> > > > >> > > > The staging repo is: >> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >> orgapachegeronimo-1034/ >> > > > >> > > > The source release and binary is here: >> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >> orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ >> geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/ >> > > > >> > > > Please VOTE: >> > > > >> > > > [+1] yeah, let's ship it! >> > > > [+0] meh, don't care >> > > > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper} >> > > > >> > > > The VOTE is open for 72h >> > > > >> > > > Here is my own +1 >> > > > >> > > > txs and LieGrue, >> > > > strub >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > ------------------------ >> > > > Guillaume Nodet >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ------------------------ >> > Guillaume Nodet >> > >> >> -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet
