Hi JL, AFAIK there was a small code change to do - until I missed it - so we are waiting for it I guess.
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 sam. 30 oct. 2021 à 13:03, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a écrit : > is there any update on this? > How far as we from the release? > > If it's too long, can we consider doing a release now and a release after > the patch is complete? > > Le lun. 11 oct. 2021 à 10:26, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > I think we should wait for Arne's fix then sounds like we would be in > good > > shape. > > > > 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 ven. 8 oct. 2021 à 15:33, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> a > > écrit : > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > Jean-Louis >
