the extension modifies @Claim to remove @NonBinding. This requires the impl to support to read qualifiers as AnnotatedType and only OWB 2.0.5 supports it in OWB series ATM
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> 2018-04-23 14:18 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > Whats the qualifier issue you're referring to? > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 8:05 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Same here, I just doubt we have an owb impl supporting the qualifier >> model change today so we can stay on OWB 2.0.5 or need to backport it to >> 1.x as well (which can likely be the case as well but can need to be done >> in parallel). >> >> >> 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> >> >> 2018-04-23 13:17 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: >> >>> If you already have a PR submitted even better. We should accept it. >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:07 AM Rudy De Busscher <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Not that hard, except maybe for the NonBinding thing which is removed >>>> from @Claim. >>>> >>>> All the rest was done in 20 minutes or so. >>>> >>>> On 23 April 2018 at 13:03, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Overall same view here. >>>>> How hard is it to make it 1.2 compliant? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le lun. 23 avr. 2018 à 12:25, John D. Ament <[email protected]> a >>>>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> MP has made it very clear they don't care about portable libraries, >>>>>> and only care about the vendor provided solutions. The requirement is >>>>>> that >>>>>> vendors provide a CDI 1.2 runtime to use. Liberty provides a way to >>>>>> switch >>>>>> between them (1.2, 2.0). I think Swarm may have moved to 2.0; not sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Safeguard also compiles against CDI 2.0, but I don't think >>>>>> I'm using any 2.0 features in it so it may run properly against 1.2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, if we have a user who wants it for 1.2, and the effort is >>>>>> minimal we should appease that user to help build out the community. >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:17 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> current codebase uses cdi 2.0 which means it can be used on tomee, >>>>>>> meecrowave, openwebbeans etc... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rudy opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6604 to >>>>>>> move it to cdi 1.2 - BTW "Microprofile depends on CDI 1.2, so using >>>>>>> 2.0 is wrong." is wrong since some years you can always use a version >>>>>>> *>=* >>>>>>> of the minimum requirement for spec impls. >>>>>>> Technically I don't see a strong need to do it but I'd like to get >>>>>>> your feeling about it to know what we do of the issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
