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
