Interceptor API changes

Heads up on some spec jar changes... I've started to run the various geronimo-foo_spec jars through the Java EE 6 TCK to ensure the signatures are correct. Once of the adjustments is that the javax.interceptor.Interceptor class no longer is marked as @Stereotype (also not @Inherited and on

Re: Interceptor API changes

? They should have been published. Published them again for good measure. Let me know if these don't look any better. -David Thanks; --Gurkan 2010/1/14 David Blevins Heads up on some spec jar changes... I've started to run the various geronimo-foo_spec jars through the Java E

Re: Interceptor API changes

On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote: I have looked, https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots-group/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_1.0_spec/1.0-SNAPSHOT/ . It is correct now. But There are two versions of interceptor specification in the repo, 1.0.0-EA1

Re: Interceptor API changes

g with TCK and it seems that there is no problem so far. --Gurkan 2010/1/19 David Blevins On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote: I have looked, https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots-group/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_1.0_spec/1.0-SNAPSHOT/ . It is cor

Re: Interceptor API changes

ntainer on board) would be to publish the 1.0.9-SNAPSHOT pom with packaging 'pom' containing only the information that is still not final and people should use EA1 instead. Basically the same like we did with javax.* artifacts for a long time. txs and LieGrue, strub --- On Wed, 1/

Re: Interceptor API changes

nt? LieGrue, strub --- On Wed, 1/20/10, David Blevins wrote: From: David Blevins Subject: Re: Interceptor API changes To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 11:50 PM That sounds cool. Send me a pom and I'll push it up! -David On Jan 20, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Ma

Re: interceptors in constructors

On Feb 9, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: As far as I read in the EJB interceptors spec, constructors may not get intercepted. The question is if methods called within the constructors may have to become intercepted. Afaik common sense is that this is not really defined and shall no

Re: graduation

On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:02 AM, David Blevins wrote: > I wonder what the group would think about potentially graduating into > OpenEJB. Perhaps as a subproject for this spec cycle, but with the longer > term goal of becoming part of the same codebase. > > Vision-wise, I&

Re: graduation

e on our end to try and keep a distance. -David > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Sun, 6/20/10, David Blevins wrote: > >> From: David Blevins >> Subject: Re: graduation >> To: openwebbeans-...@incubator.apache.org >> Date: Sunday, June 20, 2010

Re: ejb local interface types

On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > I'm doing some work with a non-openejb EJB container and looking at > the base and openejb-specific logic > > OpenEJBBean.java: >public List getRemoveMethods() >{ >// Should we delegate to super and merge both? >return f

Re: Java EE Web Profile TCK

On Jul 11, 2010, at 6:11 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote: > Is anybody know how to get Java EE Web Profile TCK from Oracle/Sun? Or show > me > a pointer? Here's the first step: http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf If we can get both you and Mark to submit one, great. After that is recorded, I

Fwd: JCDI and Bean Validation TCKs

If you have any thoughts, post 'em! :) Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: > From: David Blevins > Date: July 19, 2010 9:44:53 PM PDT > To: d...@geronimo.apache.org > Subject: JCDI and Bean Validation TCKs > Reply-To: d...@geronimo.apache.org > > Current

EJBUtility.fireEvents

Curious on this part of that method: manager.addBean(WebBeansUtil.createNewBean(ejbBean)); manager.addBean(ejbBean); Wondering why we need to essentially add the bean twice. Running into an issue as the NewBean impl uses only class information to construct the un

Re: EJBUtility.fireEvents

t;> Chapter 12, Packaging and deployment. The container discovers @New >> qualified >> beans by inspecting injection points >> other enabled beans. >> >> " >> >> >> Thanks; >> >> --Gurkan >> >> >> __

Re: EJBUtility.fireEvents

On Aug 4, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > But maybe I miss something: what do you mean with different meta-data in this > context? For example, something like this: BeanOne org.foo.MyEjbClass Stateful

Re: EJBUtility.fireEvents

On Aug 4, 2010, at 2:25 AM, David Blevins wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> But maybe I miss something: what do you mean with different meta-data in >> this >> context? > > For example, something like this: > > >

Interceptor callback signature strictness

This is a debatable chance, but the goal is to somehow make it possible for integrators to be less strict with this particular spec rule. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=982715 Basically, we opted not to strictly enforce this as the invocationContext.proceed() method thro

Re: Interceptor callback signature strictness

On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:18 AM, David Blevins wrote: > This is a debatable chance, but the goal is to somehow make it possible for > integrators to be less strict with this particular spec rule. > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=982715 > > Basi

Re: [DISCusS] openwebbeans.configuration new

I like it. Maybe change 'ordinal' to precedence. And maybe spread out the built-in configurations a bit so it could be possible for someone to slip in some configuration in-between them. With essentially 0-99 still being lower than default, there's plenty of room. So maybe something like: w

Possible static elimination

Sort of a big topic and I'd like to throw this out there to get a feel of where people's heads are at. The basis of the architecture is static methods with hash table lookups on the other end. There are about 110 static uses to BeanManager.getManager() in impl alone and each one of those is a

Re: Possible static elimination

p and additionally eliminate most of the unnecessary calls. > > wdyt? Count me in for helping with that :) Would be a fantastic change. > Oh yea, all work on this will be done after -alpha-2 of course ;) Anxiously waiting :) -David > - Original Message >> From: David Bl

Re: dependency to scannotation

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Gerhard wrote: > hi @ all, > > i talked to bill burke (the developer of scannotation). he told me that he > stopped maintaining scannotation. > that means he is looking for somebody who continues with the project. > > imo: > since we won't get in bugfixes we should

Re: Possible static elimination

On Aug 29, 2010, at 10:34 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:45 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> Yes David. As posted in some Jira issue I'd like to aim for moving all those >> little helper classes as members to BeanManager and giving them a back

Re: Possible static elimination

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >  Basically just attempting to strongly type that second hashmap.  I'm a big > fan of incremental refactoring and this seemed like a nice baby-step that > didn't require us to break the existing WebBeansFinder API, y

Re: svn commit: r1055805 [1/2] - in /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-impl/src: main/java/org/apache/webbeans/annotation/ main/java/org/apache/webbeans/config/ main/java/org/apache/webbeans/container/ main

On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote: > Some statements in WebBeansContext and DefaultsingleonService as > > util.Track. > > I will comment out them Whoops! Thanks, Gurkan! I have a script to comment/uncomment them, but forgot to run it. Was a little tired :) -David

Re: Next steps with WebBeansContext?

bBeansContext recently and was a little surprised at what >> it does and doesn't do. I wonder if what I want it to do is what David >> Blevins was thinking of as "next steps". You pretty much got it. The changes are a good next step. We still have a ways to go as

Re: Next steps with WebBeansContext?

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Blevins wrote: > On Dec 31, 2010, at 1:31 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> Some of these ideas are implemented in the patch attached to >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-511 >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >

Re: Possible static elimination

Ok, we're getting down to the last bits. Here are the remaining non-test references: 1 org.apache.webbeans.context.SessionContext 1 org.apache.webbeans.context.creational.DependentCreationalContext 1 org.apache.webbeans.inject.impl.InjectionPointImpl 1 org.apache.webbeans.intercept.In

Re: Possible static elimination

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Btw,... > > > ... a biiig thanks for your work on this topic! Really great stuff! No problem. It's been fun. > And also to djencks for the integration stuff and TCK work! Thanks to Gurkan as well. It pretty much started with him, went to

Running TCK in Tomcat

Attempting to run the in-Tomcat version of the tck. Not having any luck. Doesn't seem like the expected files are being copied into Tomcat. Namely, it seems to be missing the CDI API jar. Before I spend much time digging into this, can someone verify that these are the correct steps (taken f

Re: heavy performance decrease in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT

On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > hi folks! > > Today I did run a few jmeter tests and it seems that we have some serious > bottle neck in our code currently. The app just doesn't really scale well > anymore and performance is down to 20% compared to 1.0.0 ... What aspects w

Re: heavy performance decrease in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT

or you're really just measuring your disk. Improved logging could easily explain that sharp decrease. -David > > --- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins wrote: > >> From: David Blevins >> Subject: Re: heavy performance decrease in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT >> To: dev@openwe

Re: heavy performance decrease in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT

t as down *by* 20%. Grab a 15 day trial of YourKit and do some profiling. With a gap that big there should be easy to spot. -David > > Will do a few parallel unit tests tonight. > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins wrote: > >> Fro

Re: heavy performance decrease in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT

ache.org/~dblevins/ejbd-client-performance.png You cook up your own test as you normally would, then it will execute it in parallel however you like and take samples of each "client" thread and process and spit out updated stats. -David > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On T

Re: heavy performance decrease in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT

Hope attachments work On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > oh that looks really neat. > Will check it out. > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins wrote: > >> From: David Blevins >> Subject: Re: heavy performance d

Re: heavy performance decrease in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT

David Blevins wrote: > Hope attachments work > > > > On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> oh that looks really neat. >> Will check it out. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> --- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins wrote

Snapshots

Does our hudson setup deploy snapshots? If not I could set that up in buildbot. It's possible in buildbot to have it only deploy after a successful 'mvn clean install' -David

Re: NPE when calling BeanManagerImpl.isNormalScope(component.getScope())

In OpenEJB we have OWB integrated 100% of the time. Primarily so that scenarios like this don't occur. I.e. "my app worked fine and then I turned on CDI and all these unrelated things break." Shawn, I'm hammering on that code now on the OpenEJB end. I've checked in a temporary work around th

Re: Classpath Scanner proposal

On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > I'd like to cook up something for a JSR, but need some more time. > David wrote xbean-finder and we could easily move this to commons or extract > it into a single jar in geronimo. It's already a single jar with just the org.apache.xbean.fin

Re: [VOTE] release Apache OpenWebBeans 1.1.0

+1 On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.0 . > > Maven staging repo: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenwebbeans-040/ > > SVN source tag (1085208): > https://svn.apache.org/repos/a

Re: Classpath Scanner proposal

and synchronizing it will get you bottlenecks. That's the part I try and stay away from. -David > ________ > From: David Blevins > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > Sent: Fri, March 25, 2011 7:54:28 AM > Subject: Re: Classpath Scanner proposal >

Exception handling idea

Grinding through some of the "broken" packages of the CDI TCK and many of them are passing... some of them for the wrong reason. Any deployment issue counts as a win with those tests, so it's incredibly difficult to verify if the test is passing for the right reason. One thing that is obvious

Re: Exception handling idea

Do you know if that list is open? -David > --- On Wed, 5/25/11, David Blevins wrote: > >> From: David Blevins >> Subject: Exception handling idea >> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org >> Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 6:43 AM >> Grinding through some of the &

Observer method resolution

Digging into a test that essentially has two observer methods and is asserting that only one of them are called. public void observeElephantSessionBean(@Observes ProcessSessionBean event) { ProcessBeanObserver.elephantProcessSessionBean = event; } public void observeElephan

Re: Observer method resolution

:) Filed a JIRA https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-215 -David > ________ > From: David Blevins > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > Sent: Wed, June 8, 2011 1:01:54 PM > Subject: Observer method resolution > > Digging into a test that essential

Re: Observer method resolution

one? (already overloaded) -David On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:27 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote: > >> Hello David >> >> There are some cases that are explicitly defined in the specification. You >> can >> open TCK is

Re: Snapshots

build failures due to out of date OWB snaps. Who has access to setup the OWB snapshots to automatically publish? -David > --- On Thu, 3/10/11, David Blevins wrote: > >> From: David Blevins >> Subject: Snapshots >> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org >> Date: Thursday, M

Re: Snapshots

eronimo folks, what is your opinion? >> >> Now that we have CI systems setup for both Geronimo and OpenEJB we're >> getting a fair amount of build failures due to out of date OWB snaps. >> >> Who has access to setup the OWB snapshots to automatically publis

Thought: Lazily create @New bean defs

Kind of a random thought. Not sure if it's even possible, but There's nothing particularly fancy about @New beans. Perhaps we don't need to be eagerly creating these things. Resolving references involves a lot of list iteration for us and the eager creation of @New bean definitions bloats

Release?

We'll probably be doing releases of Geronimo in the next couple weeks. Wondering what we thought about the timing for our 1.1.1 code. Anything in particular we want to get in it or are we pretty much good to go? -David

ImplementationLoaderService rename

Renamed ImplementationLoaderService to simply LoaderService. Let me know if I stepped on anyone's toes :) Will be happy to revert. Seeing "implements Implementation..." in the code had me lost in an existential "chicken and egg" and "the meaning of meaning" tailspin. Too deep for me too thin

1.1.4 release?

Anyone mind if I take a shot at a 1.1.4 release? If someone else would rather do it, that's fine. Any showstoppers that we'd want for a 1.1.4 release? -David

Fwd: Apache TomEE 1.0.0-beta-2

Don't forget to tell your friends! :) Begin forwarded message: > From: David Blevins > Date: January 24, 2012 12:28:37 PM PST > To: d...@openejb.apache.org > > Retweets encouraged! > > https://twitter.com/#!/ApacheTomEE/statuses/161903294216806400

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Welcome Romain Manni-Bucau as new Committer!

Welcome to this side of the fence, Romain! :) -David On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > All, > > The OpenWebBeans PMC is pleased to announce that Romain Manni-Bucau has > accepted our invitation to join the OpenWebBeans project as a > committer. > > Congratulations and we

Re: [VOTE] take2 Release Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.4

+1 David On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:23 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to call a second VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.4 . > > > I've now fixed the picking up of the atinject-tck and docs. > > > This > is a bugfix release of OpenWebBeans-1.1.x, thus no branch has been >

javassist removal

Hey All, Heads up that I'd like to investigate removing javassist and replacing it with some simple ASM code to create subclass based proxies. The proxy code is the small part, the bigger part is refactoring out the MethodHandler classes and replacing them with java.lang.reflect.InvocationHand

Re: javassist removal

ist ? Certainly no impact to user code. If someone has some very deep OWB integration code that digs right down into the proxy layer, they're welcome to speak up. We can easily hold the show and discuss. -David > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:27 AM, David Blevins wrote: > >> He

Re: javassist removal

d this out maybe 4 years ago without giving it much though. I love commons and am happy for the code to live anywhere. -David > 2012/8/9 David Blevins : >> Hey All, >> >> Heads up that I'd like to investigate removing javassist and replacing it >> with some sim

Re: [VOTE] release Apache OpenWebBeans 1.1.5

+1 -David On Aug 8, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > Hi! > > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.5 . > > This is a bugfix release of OpenWebBeans-1.1.x, thus no branch has been > created. > It mainly contains compatibility/portability/performance i

Re: [DISCUSS] release OWB-1.1.6 end of this week?

Got the ASM support finished. OWB-701 officially closed. We still use Javassist by default, but we have the ability to use ASM. Mark, do you need help with the release? (I know you have a *very* busy week coming up :) -David On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > 2nd try as m

Re: [DISCUSS] release OWB-1.1.6 end of this week?

mit all your changes which you have Jiras created for? > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > - Original Message - >> From: David Blevins >> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org; Mark Struberg >> Cc: >> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:56 AM >&g

Re: [VOTE] release Apache OpenWebBeans build tools 1.2

+1 On Sep 16, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > Hi! > > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans build-tools-1.2. > This release is needed for shipping OWB. > > > We just relaxed the method length rules a bit.Maven staging repo: > https://repository.apache.o

Re: [VOTE] [take-2] release Apache OpenWebBeans 1.1.6

+1 Thanks, so much, Mark for all the work on this release! Pretty outstanding! -David On Sep 25, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > Hi! > > I'd again like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.6 . I > fixed the issues which stopped our first attempt > > This > is

Thoughts on OWB 1.1.7 ?

What's the approximate timeline on 1.1.7 ? -David

OWB 1.1.8

Probably should have sent this note yesterday. We need a 1.1.8 release for the pending TomEE 1.5.2. Mark had indicated he needed to get OWB-790 fixed which he did. I might try rolling some release candidates unless someone beats me to it. If there's some reason to hold up, that's cool too.

Re: OWB 1.1.8

gt; Though I'm not sure if we have all the xbean release finished until tomorrow > evening. (still 1 +1 missing imo) > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > - Original Message - >> From: David Blevins >> To: openwebbeans-dev >> Cc:

Re: [VOTE] (take2) Release Apache OpenWebBeans 1.1.8

+1 David On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Hi! > > > 2nd try ;) > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.8 . > > This is a bugfix release of OpenWebBeans-1.1.x, thus it's maintained in a > maintenance branch. > > This > release mainly contain

Re: Go ahead with CDI 1.1

+1 On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > @mark: +1 > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2013/4/11 Mark Struberg > >> I'd say we keep 1.2 as CDI-1.0 and implement CDI-1.1 in 2.0. >> >> Reason is that this will allow TomEE-1.6.x to switch to owb-1.2.x and take >> a bit more tim

Compile error in trunk?

[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:2.3.2:compile (default-compile) on project openwebbeans-ee-common: Compilation failure [ERROR] /Users/dblevins/work/openwebbeans/webbeans-ee-common/src/main/java/org/apache/webbeans/ee/common/beans/PrincipalBean.java:

Possibly invalid passivation capability check

Since the upgrade to 1.2.0 in we have a test failure. There's a servlet with constructor injection like so: @Inject public SimpleServlet(Car car) { this.car = car; } And Car looks like so: public class Car { private final String make = "Lexus", model = "IS 350"

Re: [VOTE] [CANCELLED] release Apache OpenWebBeans-1.2.0

Excellent. Fixed an issue in OWB that was affecting the TomEE build for a few days (OWB-858 - AnnotatedTypeImpl not thread safe). Was causing java.util.ConcurrentModificationExceptions. Hopefully we can get that in there. Out of time tonight, but would like to find the issue with passivation

Re: Possibly invalid passivation capability check

njection target (SimpleServlet constructor) are passivation capable. -David > Am 10.05.13 22:55 schrieb "David Blevins" unter : > >> Since the upgrade to 1.2.0 in we have a test failure. There's a servlet >> with constructor injection like so: >&g

Re: [VOTE] [CANCELLED] release Apache OpenWebBeans-1.2.0

The change in TomEE covered it up, but didn't fix the root issue. Added a test case in OWB that reproduces it using just the BeanManager. -David On May 11, 2013, at 1:22 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > -1 David, it was already fixed and was a tomee issue! > Le 11 mai 2013 05

AnnotatedTypeImpl and thread safety

There was some doubt on IRC as to if AnnotatedType should be thread safe as well as some comments that eliminating the use of AnnotatedType at runtime would be a possible solution. We certainly can reduce or eliminate our use of AnnotatedType, but noticed the BeanManager API gives us no choice

Re: AnnotatedTypeImpl and thread safety

On May 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, David Blevins wrote: > That being said, I'll see if I can reduce the memory requirement of the fix. Done. Managed to reduce the memory requirement of the original code for the lazy case as well. Basically two object references lighter (128 bits). Thr

Re: [VOTE] take2 - Release OWB-1.2.0

That would be a good change. I mentioned on IRC yesterday that the new code is technically still not thread-safe as the lists themselves are not thread-safe (your point). Mark's first remark was that the lists are not updated after initialization. If that's true we could even get by with simp

Re: AnnotatedTypeImpl and thread safety

declaringType. I looked through all the code usages, ran all the tests, ran the TCK in OWB and in TomEE and this never happened. If anyone sees any issues with it, let me know. -David On May 11, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > On May 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, David Blevins wrote: >

Re: AnnotatedTypeImpl and thread safety

ant it thread safe at runtime > convert it to sthg thread safe...copyonwriteXXX structures will be enough. > We dont need what you did IMO > Le 12 mai 2013 00:04, "David Blevins" a écrit : > >> >> On May 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, David Blevins >> wrote:

Re: AnnotatedTypeImpl and thread safety

more > Le 12 mai 2013 20:15, "David Blevins" a écrit : > >> Looked into that this morning. >> >> It occurred to me that would definitely make it thread-safe, but alone >> doesn't give us the right logic for AnnotatedType.getMethods(), etc. which >&

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWebBeans build-tools 1.3

+1 David On May 13, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi! > > This is now a split VOTE for owb-build-tools-1.3 > > The stating repo is up here: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenwebbeans-016/ > > > The sources can be found at > > https://repository

Time for 1.2.1?

Anyone have any objections if I roll a 1.2.1 release? -David

Re: Time for 1.2.1?

>> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Monday, 4 November 2013, 8:24 >>> Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? >>> >>> Lol >>> I've been discussing with Mark for a while. We were waiting some fixes >> but >

Re: Time for 1.2.1?

oday. >> >> Thanks a lot >> Jean Louis >> >> Le 6 nov. 2013 06:29, "Romain Manni-Bucau" a écrit : >> >>> We have a regression (found on tomee list). I proposed a patch but it needs >>> some review (Mark wanted to have a deeper look

Re: Time for 1.2.1?

n if not perfect, it works in some cases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If definitely not a good patch, who can help fixing that, that was >> my >>>>>> main >>>>>>>> purpose. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> JLouis >>>

Re: [VOTE] take 1: Release Apache OpenWebBeans-1.2.1

+1 -David On Nov 8, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote: > Hey guys, > > As discuss in another thread, I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache > OpenWebBeans-1.2.1 . > > This is a maintenance release of the OpenWebBeans-1.2.x branch. > > The ReleaseNotes are available online: > h

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWebBeans-1.2.4

+1 and thank you!! On May 1, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.2.4 . > > This is a maintenance release of the owb_1.2.x branch and targets the CDI-1.0 > specification. > > The ReleaseNotes are available online: > https:/

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWebBeans 1.2.5

+1 -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com On May 23, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.2.5 . > > This is a maintenance release of the owb_1.2.x branch and ta

Re: [VOTE] for Apache OpenWebBeans 1.6.1

+1 -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com On Jun 16, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi! > > I’d like to call a VOTE on Apache OpenWebBeans-1.6.1. > > The staging repository is here > https://repository.apache.org/co

Custom Scope mystery

gutted ExternalTestScopeContext but sadly all tests in webbeans-impl still pass. Went back several versions 1.2.2, 1.1.8, etc. Sadly same behavior on all of them. What’s the deal? (fyi, presentation is Tuesday) -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com

Re: Custom Scope mystery

manager, therefore the custom scope is *never* used. Don’t have time to improve the testcase, but perfect afternoon of hacking for someone else to enjoy :) -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Oct 24, 2015, at 10:49 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > In

Beans added via Extensions and Interceptors and Decorators

#x27;t have the defineInterceptorStack method and we skip it at the time where we would resolve those. Is there a reason we don't have the inner class in ThirdpartyBeanImpl extend AbstractProducer? -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com

Re: Why is jakarta forbidden?

> On Mar 12, 2021, at 11:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > Hi, > > Likely more a question for David: why is jakarta considered as a forbidden > package ( > https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/commit/6ede81da26a4a65dc0c88fda7e438f29114fea37) > ? > > To explain why I ask: jakarta is a mo

Re: Why is jakarta forbidden?

> On Mar 15, 2021, at 9:27 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Hi, > > Added a configuration for the packages - since we can hit that with some > "specific" jars and some signed ones: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1377 > Didn't get a change to run TCK setup but proxied the jakarta pa

Re: Ready for the next release?

On the Jakarta namespace support, I should just need another day or so to verify. -David > On Mar 15, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Once we solved/reverted/enhanced the jakarta pending point +1 > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau

Re: Why is jakarta forbidden?

> On Mar 15, 2021, at 2:16 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> On Mar 15, 2021, at 9:27 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Added a configuration for the packages - since we can hit that with some >> "specific" jars and some

Re: Why is jakarta forbidden?

> On Mar 16, 2021, at 4:56 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > The results after the OWB upgrade and prior to this weekend's changes were > less than 10k passing. For clarity, the reason things worked before the OWB upgrade is we had AbstractProxyFactory patched. I deleted that af

Re: Ready for the next release?

> On Mar 16, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > oki, it is now configurable. So the worst thing you could do is to overwrite > the default in an openwebbeans.properties file inside TomEE. Everything looks good for a release from the TomEE side. Fire at will. > Btw, TomEE builds perfec

Re: Ready for the next release?

> On Mar 17, 2021, at 1:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Le mer. 17 mars 2021 à 08:50, Romain Manni-Bucau a > écrit : > >> @David OWB is still on 3.0.0-M3: >> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/master/webbeans-tck-jakarta/pom.xml#L167 >> > > Ok just upgraded to 3.0.1 and we are s

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenWebBeans 2.0.22 - take 2

+1 -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Mar 17, 2021, at 7:56 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Hi lords and ladies! > > I'd like to call a 2nd VOTE for releasing Apache OpenWebBeans 2.0.22 > > We did fix the following ticket

OpenWebBeans 2.0.22 Certification Request

py to do the first one if someone can point me to instructions on how to update the website. Here's the full documentation on the process: - https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/tckprocess/ -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

  1   2   >