Hmmm so you're thinking we need to keep a map of classloader/CDIProvider pairs?
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:16 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > >
