Re: Will run the mw 1.2.0 release tonight

You mean to run an OWB release as well, sure! LieGrue, strub > Am 05.10.2017 um 12:08 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > no blocker to upgrade the version > > I'd like to have OWB 2.0.2 (with request scope controller) in it though, > does that sound doable? > > > Romain

Re: Will run the mw 1.2.0 release tonight

+1 regards, gerhard 2017-10-05 11:38 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg : > And also will update to johnzon-1.1.4 before that. > CXF is already updated to 3.2.0 which will require people to update CXF > and JAX-RS api, so I'd prefer calling it 1.2.0. > > Any objections? > >

Re: Different BeanManagers in use

Then it means OWB is not started or the WebBeansFinder is not correct or your classloader is not stable Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: Different BeanManagers in use

These are different BeanManagerimpls On Oct 5, 2017 7:33 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" wrote: > Hi John, > > you get a new InjectableBeanManager each time yes which is wrapping the > same BeanManagerImpl. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau

Re: Different BeanManagers in use

Hi John, you get a new InjectableBeanManager each time yes which is wrapping the same BeanManagerImpl. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Different BeanManagers in use

Hi, I'm troubleshooting an issue in Hammock where when using OWB 2.0.1 + Tomcat 9 M26, the results of CDI.current().getBeanManager() give back different BeanManager instances. In fact, calling WebBeansContext.currentInstance() is returning a different instance on each invocation in separate

Re: Will run the mw 1.2.0 release tonight

no blocker to upgrade the version I'd like to have OWB 2.0.2 (with request scope controller) in it though, does that sound doable? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Will run the mw 1.2.0 release tonight

And also will update to johnzon-1.1.4 before that. CXF is already updated to 3.2.0 which will require people to update CXF and JAX-RS api, so I'd prefer calling it 1.2.0. Any objections? LieGrue, strub

[jira] [Created] (MEECROWAVE-68) JUL/Log4j integration not respected if not set on the JVM

Romain Manni-Bucau created MEECROWAVE-68: Summary: JUL/Log4j integration not respected if not set on the JVM Key: MEECROWAVE-68 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MEECROWAVE-68

[jira] [Resolved] (MEECROWAVE-68) JUL/Log4j integration not respected if not set on the JVM

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MEECROWAVE-68?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Romain Manni-Bucau resolved MEECROWAVE-68. -- Resolution: Fixed > JUL/Log4j integration not respected if not set on the

[jira] [Resolved] (OWB-1191) implement api for manual request-context handling

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1191?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Romain Manni-Bucau resolved OWB-1191. - Resolution: Fixed Merged fixing style (checkstyle) + headers (not that sure what was wrong