yes - it's non-intrusive because i fixed it. however, we have a spi (ScannerService) for such additional features.
regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2011/2/13 Eric Covener <[email protected]> > Isn't the current code pretty non-intrusive and no behavior change by > default? > > Is there something like a draft to cite that shows what overhaul in > this area is due in 1.1? > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mark Struberg (JIRA) <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 3:40 PM > Subject: [jira] Commented: (OWB-472) archive centric beans.xml enabling > To: [email protected] > > > > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-472?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12994150#comment-12994150 > ] > > Mark Struberg commented on OWB-472: > ----------------------------------- > > I fear we need to rollback the commits. The problem with this is that > the whole BDA definition is UTTERLY broken in the spec. This resulted > in a spec change which is due to 1.1. See CDI-18 for more information. > By implementing the same sh**t than Weld currently has (they are > forced to, but hey, we are not the RI ;) we just corrupt any normal > modus operandi. > > Comments are welcome. > > > archive centric beans.xml enabling > > ----------------------------------- > > > > Key: OWB-472 > > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-472 > > Project: OpenWebBeans > > Issue Type: Improvement > > Components: Injection and Lookup > > Reporter: Jacquelle Leggett > > Assignee: Mark Struberg > > Attachments: patch.txt > > > > Original Estimate: 336h > > Remaining Estimate: 336h > > > > This issue was discussed in great detail in June ( > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openwebbeans-dev/201006.mbox/browser) > on the developers forum. The title of the thread is "problems with lack of > archive-centric BeanManager". > > The main problem is described below (snippet from discussion): > > "...Our current design does not permit either of the following > scenarions, AFAICT: > > b.jar and c.jar both enable the interceptor defined in a.jar > > (treated as a duplicate) > > Exactly one of b.jar and c.jar enables the interceptor defined in > > a.jar (ends up enabled for beans from either archive if enabled in one > > -- this is in the more troubling neighborhood)..." > > -- > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > - > For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira > > > > > > -- > Eric Covener > [email protected] >
