I'm fine with 11 as well, all runs really well and we don't use any feature from Java17. I did it mainly to push the boundaries a bit. Maybe I pushed too far ;)
LieGrue, strub > Am 09.02.2023 um 02:15 schrieb David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>: > > Looks like we’ve set the Java version to 17. I can confirm it does build > fine with 11. > > Are we open to using 11 for 4.0.0 and waiting till the next release to go to > 17? > > > -David > > >> On Jan 30, 2023, at 5:40 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >
