All pushed and testing on TomEE now with the TCK Looking at the MyFaces issue
Le mer. 6 oct. 2021 à 14:47, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > +1 to get a *new* SPI for the allocation (ok if we test if definingService > is an instanceof it and reuse the same instance but should stay split) > +1 to port the logic of tomee to OWB around unsafe with new method handles > if it does not trigger any warning by default (was the reason to bypass > Unsafe constructor when defining service is set). > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > Le mer. 6 oct. 2021 à 14:25, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > For the sake of clarity here is our problem. > > We want to support JDK 17 in TomEE. > > > > For our proxy creation, we were used to using Unsafe (like OWB and a lot > > more). > > We changed that to use a method handles lookup, but still from JDK 17+ it > > does not work either. > > We have a similar service ClassDefiner in TomEE where we do the switch > > automatically to ClassLoader.defineClass when it's available to create > the > > proxy from the byte array. > > > > OWB does that using explicit configuration but overall it is the same. > > Where it becomes different is after ... > > > > As soon as you have created the Class with the byte array, you somehow > need > > to instantiate it. > > In TomEE, we still by default use Unsafe.allocateInstance because there > is > > no replacement for now and it is still working under JDK17. > > > > For OWB, if you switch to using ClassLoader.defineClass for JDK 17, then > > the default constructor is used and Unsafe is totally bypassed. > > > > I'm not questioning the choice made, but the fact we need to be able to > > override that behavior in TomEE at least. > > We can't always use the default constructor. Using > Unsafe.allocateInstance > > won't call the default constructor. > > > > If we can override OWB default behavior, then CDI beans managed by OWB > and > > beans managed by TomEE will work the same way and users can switch from > one > > to the other without side effects. > > > > So functionally it's the same with my change. > > I'm almost sure no one is creating it's own DefiningClassService > > implementation but the user facing interface argument is acceptable. I'd > go > > with a default method in the interface or create an > > InstanciatingClassService even though it's overkill in my opinion. > > > > The comments in the tests should have been removed. I first wanted to > add a > > test to reproduce the issue we had in TomEE, but actually > > InterceptionOfBeanWithConstructorInjectionTest already shows that using > > default constructor instead of Unsafe.allocateInstance breaks OWB itself. > > It also breaks a couple of other things in TomEE like the security > > extension. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 6 oct. 2021 à 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > a > > écrit : > > > > > Hi JL, > > > > > > It looks weird because we already had a fallback to use the > constructor - > > > and BTW i'm not sure the commented part of the test should be. > > > So this shouldn't help TomEE. > > > > > > Do you have a test where this change helps? > > > > > > side note: we likely don't want to break the SPI since it is an user > > facing > > > part. > > > I saw you mentionned a default method but we should probably check we > > need > > > it at all before (not sure how tomee is different there on java 17 > since > > > the extension points were already set up IIRC). > > > > > > Happy to discuss on slack if it is easier - know mails can be > complicated > > > for such things ;). > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > < > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 6 oct. 2021 à 10:14, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> > a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > Thanks Thomas > > > > > > > > I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1392 > > > > And I pushed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/commit/2af6184ee5ec6b474f037b3c5768c82bba136722 > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate feedback, review and comments. Should have created a > PR > > > > sorry. > > > > Functionally, it's the same as previously, but it allows TomEE to > > > override > > > > the instanciation part to be consistent. > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 5 oct. 2021 à 23:11, Thomas Andraschko < > > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > > > > a écrit : > > > > > > > > > AFAIK we didnt start the process yet, so we can wait for your fix > > > > > > > > > > Am Di., 5. Okt. 2021 um 22:27 Uhr schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > > > > jeano...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > I have an issue with OWB in TomEE under JDK 17 > > > > > > I think I can workaround it, but I'd need a small change in OWB. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we reroll it after my fix? > > > > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 4 oct. 2021 à 09:29, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > a > > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/10/2021 20:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We fixed a few issues: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PTKeySummaryAssigneeStatus > > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Bug] OWB-1298 > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1298> > > > > > WebsocketUserManager > > > > > > > > ambigious resolution Jakarta Faces > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1298> Unassigned > > > > RESOLVED > > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Bug] OWB-1387 > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1387> > > > > > > > > @Destroyed(ApplicationScoped.class) > > > > > > > > not thrown when @Destroyed(RequestScoped.class) exists > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1387> Arne > Limburg > > > > > > > > < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=arne> > > > > > > > CLOSED > > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Improvement] OWB-1389 > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1389> Remove > > > destroyed > > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > from memory <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1389> > > > Mark > > > > > > > Struberg > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=struberg > > > > > > > > > > > RESOLVED > > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Task] OWB-1390 > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1390> support > > > > > > > > javax.enterprise.inject.scan.implicit property > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1390> Romain > > > > Manni-Bucau > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=romain.manni-bucau > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RESOLVED > > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Task] OWB-1391 > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1391> > > > > > > > AbstractMetaDataDiscovery > > > > > > > > ignores classpath entries starting with a common path > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1391> Romain > > > > Manni-Bucau > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=romain.manni-bucau > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RESOLVED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know Thomas can await a few of them so wonder if we should > > > > trigger > > > > > a > > > > > > > > release next week (starting on the 4th) or in the following > > days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd just like to highlight the 1391 changes the way we ignore > > > > > > duplicated > > > > > > > > jars/folders in in the classpath so can be worth some > testing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No issue to delay from some days the release if it helps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Side note for our beloved tomee siblings: this shouldn't > impact > > > you > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > you don't reuse that scanning/lifecycle logic so should be a > > > "noop > > > > > > > release" > > > > > > > > for you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > > > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Louis > > > -- Jean-Louis
