Agree with Romain. Regards JB
On Aug 27, 2017, 17:48, at 17:48, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: >I don't like much this impl since it enforces a single CDI impl and >flat >classloader for the container but if really in the API we must, if just >a >leak from the javadoc we don't have to. > > >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 18:31 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > >> 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 >>>> >>> >>>
