In any case we must guarantee that the beans we need do not get picked up twice (via Extension manually + scanning).
> The OSGi CDI spec is based on CDI 2.0. We didn't want to build something new > that started with legacy. Except that EE8 is not yet widely used. But having geronimo-config based on EE7 doesn't restrict osgi-cdi from using it. It's all perfectly backward compatible. LieGrue, strub > Am 21.08.2018 um 20:16 schrieb Raymond Auge <raymond.a...@liferay.com>: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > You can always add the package in se mode. But long story short a beans.xml > solution is still recommanded over annotated mode which kind of failed by its > spec. > > Keeping the beans.xml is no harm (for OSGi CDI) provided the beans are added > via the SPI also (is that an issue?) OSGi CDI will simply ignore the > beans.xml (in portable extension bundles). > > The reason this is the case is that the OSGi CDI wants to be able to preserve > the sanctity of the class spaces between bundles providing extensions and > bundles providing the application beans. This way OSGi CDI doesn't have to > operate at all on any classes of the portable extension bundles, it consumes > the extension implementations as services, the services add the beans > programmatically and the separate is nice and clean. > > > Le mar. 21 août 2018 19:51, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit : > I would have to double check in SE mode but I think the archive would be > ignored without a beans.xml, at least with weld. > > Like I said, we could keep the beams.xml it's not a problem. > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 13:46 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > We can move all the code to extensions but id be for it only using cdi2 as a > base to avoid useless code. > > That would be my preference as well. > > > Annotated mode doesnt support producers sadly. > > Now my question is why osgi cdi doesnt support cdi 1.0 spec? We dont use more > in config impl I think. > > The OSGi CDI spec is based on CDI 2.0. We didn't want to build something new > that started with legacy. > > Cheers, > - Ray > > > Le mar. 21 août 2018 19:26, Raymond Auge <raymond.a...@liferay.com> a écrit : > I notice that there's a beans.xml file in the config impl. I'm also seeing > that some beans are explicitly added via the SPI in ConfigExtension. > > Are there any beans which would be found via `annotated` beans discovery > which are _not_ explicitly added in the extension? I also see that there are > plenty of Vitoed classes. > > I'm wondering if we could unify things to not use beans.xml at all, and only > use the extension SPI. This would ensure that things always work with the new > OSGi CDI spec. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Raymond Augé (@rotty3000) > Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) > Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance (@OSGiAlliance) > > > > -- > Raymond Augé (@rotty3000) > Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) > Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance (@OSGiAlliance)
