Maybe push the reproducer on github to let us run it. 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 lun. 17 déc. 2018 à 19:21, Laird Nelson <[email protected]> a écrit : > The same "stack" works fine with Weld. Still digging. > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:21 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The test reproduces the abstraction and the registration does not change >> the code path so it can be a "bad stack" which would make the OWB >> BeanMetadataProducer not finding the bean? >> >> >> 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 lun. 17 déc. 2018 à 18:09, Laird Nelson <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Laird, >>>> >>>> I didn't manage to reproduce with this test: >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but that test is different from the structure and usage of the >>> Narayana transaction componentry in many ways. For example, the Narayana >>> extension adds the interceptor types as annotated types (i.e. does not call >>> addInterceptor()), and the interceptedBean field is in a base class, not >>> the actual interceptor. I don't know why (or if) this would make a >>> difference, of course, but using the Narayana extension does indeed fail >>> under OpenWebBeans. I'll continue digging. >>> >>> Best, >>> Laird >>> >>
