laeubi commented on pull request #690:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/690#issuecomment-1064143527
Do you refer to
https://github.com/apache/maven-build-cache-extension/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/buildcache/CacheLifecycleParticipant.java
? Why do you make this a s
laeubi commented on pull request #690:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/690#issuecomment-1064140324
> The reason is that the extension defines a component with a session scope.
By the way I already noticed that SessionScoped components are actually hard
to implement, I used
laeubi commented on pull request #690:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/690#issuecomment-1064134506
> Also, about the _last project_ point, I think in most cases, only the top
level project has a specific classloader.
If it is not the last then "the last one that has a speci
laeubi commented on pull request #690:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/690#issuecomment-1064130054
But this does actually shows that an project classlaoder is leaked. I don't
see how reverting this makes the situation better (beside that 'it has worked
before') as obviously here
laeubi commented on pull request #690:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/690#issuecomment-1064122112
But why/how does it breaks them? As described in the PR this currently leaks
the CCL of the *last* project in the chain, and even if it makes extensions
work somehow it is clearly b
laeubi commented on pull request #690:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/690#issuecomment-1064116419
This looks like another issue that is only similar to the other fix, but why
should anything be reverted?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond t
