Doesn't break anything so +1 Now a few side note on it:
1. private static volatile CDI shouldn't be static IMO since it is broken in any container (including SE if not under a flat classloading of the cdi impl) 2. i'm not sure how the patch changes much in practise (= maybe it does worth mentioning it in the class?) 3. just realized we are not aligned on https://docs.jboss.org/cdi/api/2.0/ "protected" behavior. This looks like an abuse of the javadoc "discovered API" but wonder if we want to be aligned on the spec or make the spec cleaned up If unclear: none of these point block a release but since we revisit this "to be enhanced" area I thought it was important to mention them Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2017-08-27 14:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > Hi > > I pushed up a small fix to the CDI spec. Would it make sense to cut a > release of that? > > John >
