If no-one objects, now that I'm a committer and my PR has been approved, I'll get it merged in.
Thanks again! Jon On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 11:20 AM Jonathan Gallimore < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Romain! I've reverted that change in WithAnnotationExtension. > Hopefully this is all good to go, but if you or anyone else has any > feedback I'm happy to incorporate it. > > Thanks > > Jon > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:00 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 from me, thanks Jon >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog >> <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> >> | Old >> Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> < >> https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064 >> > >> Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) >> >> >> Le jeu. 20 nov. 2025 à 10:47, Jonathan Gallimore < >> [email protected]> a écrit : >> >> > Hi Romain >> > >> > Thanks for the review! >> > >> > 1. Do you mean this: >> > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/pull/129/files#diff-d93ee9d9a81ce0a2e660e6397ffbd80dd880fa66ffc36a93b6f52b5e5a760dffL62 >> > ? >> > Yes, I'll change that back. >> > 2. Yes - from my reading of "5.2.4. Assignability of raw and >> parameterized >> > types", and the example of `public class Dao<T extends Persistent> { >> ... }` >> > given, I'd expect the SmallRye Reactive Messaging Extension observers to >> > work ok. The wording looks the same in that section in CDI 2 and 4.x. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Jon >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:10 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Jon, >> > > >> > > overall +1, >> > > >> > > I have 2 questions: >> > > >> > > 1. can we keep the raw type test instead of making it with generic >> (the >> > > code path is different) - adding yours as a new one is great >> > > 2. did you check the spec? I know there was different rules for bean >> > > resolution and events around CDI 2.0 so wonder if it changed or weld >> > > doesn't respect it or we really never covered that case >> > > >> > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog >> > > <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog < >> https://rmannibucau.github.io/ >> > > >> > > | Old >> > > Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> > > < >> > > >> > >> https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064 >> > > > >> > > Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) >> > > >> > > >> > > Le mer. 19 nov. 2025 à 23:56, Jonathan Gallimore < >> > > [email protected]> a écrit : >> > > >> > > > Hi >> > > > >> > > > I've been trying to use SmallRye Reactive Messaging with >> OpenWebBeans >> > in >> > > > TomEE, and running into an issue that this observer is not fired in >> the >> > > > extension: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/smallrye/smallrye-reactive-messaging/blob/4.28.0/smallrye-reactive-messaging-provider/src/main/java/io/smallrye/reactive/messaging/providers/extension/ReactiveMessagingExtension.java#L53-L57 >> > > > >> > > > <T extends EmitterFactory<?>> void processEmitterFactories( >> > > > @Observes @WithAnnotations({ EmitterFactoryFor.class }) >> > > > ProcessAnnotatedType<T> event) { >> > > > AnnotatedType<?> annotatedType = event.getAnnotatedType(); >> > > > emitterFactoryBeans.add(new >> > EmitterFactoryBean<>(annotatedType)); >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > The issue seems to be that generics used mean that the method isn't >> > > matched >> > > > to the EmitterFactory classes. >> > > > >> > > > I have managed to make a small PR: >> > > > https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/pull/129 that makes this >> work, >> > > and >> > > > I >> > > > have added some additional tests, including a case that is similar >> to >> > the >> > > > above. >> > > > >> > > > Could this be considered for inclusion? I'm happy to do any rework >> > > > necessary. >> > > > >> > > > Many thanks >> > > > >> > > > Jon >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
