This is what does the extension, the not CDI 1 features used are only configurators to override the @Claim model (this one is only supported for OWB >= 2.0.5 even in the spec since more - at least 2.0.0) + to create beans (this one is easy to solve adding a custom Bean+PassivationCapable impl)
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 16:38 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > I can look at the code later but what I had to do before is capture all of > the claim injection points and provide specific producers for each. > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 10:35 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Qualifiers are per CDI spec not AnnotatedTypes. >> So if we rely on this then it's not spec compliant anyway. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> > Am 23.04.2018 um 14:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]>: >> > >> > 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 | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > >> > 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 | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > >> > 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 | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book >> > >> > >> > >> >>
