Le lun. 30 janv. 2023 à 21:27, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> a écrit :
> It's not the full story. > We for example did never really implement the inconsistent BDA > specification, global alternatives etc. > Same here. > But we implemented all api, here it is way more obvious it is wrong since it is having CDI core dead api, nothing ambiguous as the bda so not the same story at all IMHO. > The CDI-4.0 situation is an inconsistent mess. Even Weld does not > implement it fully it seems. > I really don't want to be blocked by a mess in the spec. > Strictly speaking it was a stupid spec decision but it is not a mess. Make it optional, yes, but not missing in a final release targetting this spec version. Literally means project goal we write on each report would either be totally wrong or we freeze the project to jakartaee 9. Both are wrong IMHO on the community+project sides. > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > Am 30.01.2023 um 19:02 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > >: > > > > Le lun. 30 janv. 2023 à 17:10, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid > <mailto:strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>> a > > écrit : > > > >> I don't see any reason for any -alpha or whatever release. We did never > >> claim to be a certified implementation in the past, nor likely will we > in > >> the future. We try to pass as much from the TCK as makes sense and > >> report/challenge TCK tests which disrespect/contradict the spec wording > >> and/or JavaDoc of the API. Most of those challenge tickets have been > >> bulk-closed and never really addressed for the past CDI versions. So my > >> will to go hunt for the carrot in front of my nose is not infinite > >> ("endenwollend" as we say here in Vienna). > >> > > > > We always went the spec side even if we add toggles to disable/enable > > things, but ultimately we cover the full API. > > Not providing any way to get it means we don't implement CDI anymore, > > nothing else. Can be fine but should be promoted and we should also see > > with TomEE what it means for them. > > Holding a release is not a goal but doing a final which looks like it > > covers the spec whereas it does not cover a third of it would be way more > > negative for the project IMHO so let's not be the bad guys and just > expose > > explicitly our state with a pre-final whatever name fits for you. > > > > > >> > >> If someone wants to address/implement the CDI-lite functionality (s)he > is > >> perfectly welcome to do so. I doubt I will find the time to do it. > >> > > > > Once again, no issue to not do it now, should just be a goal of 4.0.0. > > > > > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >>> Am 30.01.2023 um 14:48 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com > >>> : > >>> > >>> * +1 to drop jetty plugin for now > >>> * +-0 to shade cdi-api (nobody will consume it anyway) > >>> * -1 to release to not milestone without being spec compliant - > including > >>> cdi-lite which is part of cdi-core (even if we all disagree), minimum > for > >>> me is to provide an openwebbeans-lite module implementing the cdi > >> extension > >>> making it supported, +1 to get a 4.0.0-alpha1 if it helps > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 lun. 30 janv. 2023 à 14:43, Thomas Andraschko < > >>> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >>> > >>>> all sounds good to me > >>>> > >>>> Am Mo., 30. Jan. 2023 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb Mark Struberg > >>>> <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>: > >>>> > >>>>> hi folks! > >>>>> > >>>>> We are up and running with passing most CDI-4.0 TCK tests. > >>>>> There are a few areas where we have excluded some tests: > >>>>> > >>>>> * CDI-lite. I'll not gonna implement this in OWB as it is purely for > >>>>> Quarkus and I don't care. It should be straight forward to implement > >> the > >>>>> functionality as OWB plugin if someone really needs it though. > >>>>> * Some challenged tests, some unspecified behaviour in some tests. > E.g. > >>>>> they assume a specified order class annotations before method > >> annotations > >>>>> for Interceptors. But the spec *explicitly* says that for > Interceptors > >>>> with > >>>>> the same @Priority the order is unspecified. > >>>>> * backward incompatible reversing the default bean-discovery-mode for > >>>>> empty beans.xmls. I'll not gonna implement this as it also did break > >> the > >>>>> JakartaEE rules alltogether. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Things I want to change yet before the release: > >>>>> > >>>>> * Decide about the jetty9 plugin. Tbh I'd keep it excluded until > >> someone > >>>>> wants to contribute fixes to it. > >>>>> * provide a shaded version of the CDI api jar without all the > CDI-lite > >>>>> parts. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Wdyt? > >>>>> > >>>>> LieGrue, > >>>>> strub > >
