Makes sense.
If not final then, if possible, let's try to 100% ensure our impls work as
that (based on standalone and ee models). Can be better than changing impls
for OSGi on the long run :).
Le ven. 24 août 2018 21:19, Raymond Auge a
écrit :
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Raymond Auge
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Raymond Auge
wrote:
> Romain, to clarify your question about testing, which I'm only now finally
> grasped; I wouldn't want to add such tests just yet because the OSGi CDI
> integration spec is not final, nor is the RI. So I wouldn't want to add
> SNAPSHOT things
Romain, to clarify your question about testing, which I'm only now finally
grasped; I wouldn't want to add such tests just yet because the OSGi CDI
integration spec is not final, nor is the RI. So I wouldn't want to add
SNAPSHOT things into the already usable geronimo-config-impl.
However, once it
In any case we must guarantee that the beans we need do not get picked up twice
(via Extension manually + scanning).
> The OSGi CDI spec is based on CDI 2.0. We didn't want to build something new
> that started with legacy.
Except that EE8 is not yet widely used.
But having geronimo-config base
Should not. The CDI Extension is completely independent from the beans.xml
file. It should get picked up in any case. Otherwise it's likely an
implementation bug.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 21.08.2018 um 19:51 schrieb John D. Ament :
>
> I would have to double check in SE mode but I think the archiv
Im more concern we dont break it by error if we do it on all specs so a
profile running tcks in this env or a single osgi test would be very
beneficial.
Not a bmocker though for your pr ;)
Le mar. 21 août 2018 22:04, Raymond Auge a
écrit :
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Romain Manni-Buc
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Raymond Auge
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote:
>
>> Oki. So sounds inside an extension bundle the extension can access its
>> own beans too which is the case of config so sounds like we are good or
>> goodable ;).
>>
>> Btw
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Oki. So sounds inside an extension bundle the extension can access its own
> beans too which is the case of config so sounds like we are good or
> goodable ;).
>
> Btw which impl do you use to test? Any way to test at build time?
>
I t
Oki. So sounds inside an extension bundle the extension can access its own
beans too which is the case of config so sounds like we are good or
goodable ;).
Btw which impl do you use to test? Any way to test at build time?
Le mar. 21 août 2018 21:58, Raymond Auge a
écrit :
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
>
>
> Le mar. 21 août 2018 20:17, Raymond Auge a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You can always add the package in se mode. But long story short a
>>> bea
Le mar. 21 août 2018 20:17, Raymond Auge a
écrit :
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote:
>
>> You can always add the package in se mode. But long story short a
>> beans.xml solution is still recommanded over annotated mode which kind of
>> failed by its spec.
>>
>
>
Here's how all that would look on geronimo-config (minus any beans that
need to be added that wouldn't if beans.xml was ignored... if any.)
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config/pull/5
- Ray
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Raymond Auge
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Romain
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> You can always add the package in se mode. But long story short a
> beans.xml solution is still recommanded over annotated mode which kind of
> failed by its spec.
>
Keeping the beans.xml is no harm (for OSGi CDI) provided the beans ar
You can always add the package in se mode. But long story short a beans.xml
solution is still recommanded over annotated mode which kind of failed by
its spec.
Le mar. 21 août 2018 19:51, John D. Ament a écrit :
> I would have to double check in SE mode but I think the archive would be
> ignored
I would have to double check in SE mode but I think the archive would be
ignored without a beans.xml, at least with weld.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 13:46 Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> We can move all the code to extensions but id be for it only using cdi2 as
> a base to avoid useless code.
>
> Annotat
We can move all the code to extensions but id be for it only using cdi2 as
a base to avoid useless code.
Annotated mode doesnt support producers sadly.
Now my question is why osgi cdi doesnt support cdi 1.0 spec? We dont use
more in config impl I think.
Le mar. 21 août 2018 19:26, Raymond Auge
I notice that there's a beans.xml file in the config impl. I'm also seeing
that some beans are explicitly added via the SPI in ConfigExtension.
Are there any beans which would be found via `annotated` beans discovery
which are _not_ explicitly added in the extension? I also see that there
are plen
17 matches
Mail list logo
