up? Any news on this pending change? 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 dim. 31 oct. 2021 à 08:05, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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 >> >