All good now. I think we can release now Le jeu. 7 oct. 2021 à 10:42, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 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 > -- Jean-Louis
