You can always add the package in se mode. But long story short a beans.xml solution is still recommanded over annotated mode which kind of failed by its spec.
Le mar. 21 août 2018 19:51, John D. Ament <[email protected]> a écrit : > I would have to double check in SE mode but I think the archive would be > ignored without a beans.xml, at least with weld. > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 13:46 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We can move all the code to extensions but id be for it only using cdi2 >> as a base to avoid useless code. >> >> Annotated mode doesnt support producers sadly. >> >> Now my question is why osgi cdi doesnt support cdi 1.0 spec? We dont use >> more in config impl I think. >> >> Le mar. 21 août 2018 19:26, Raymond Auge <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >>> I notice that there's a beans.xml file in the config impl. I'm also >>> seeing that some beans are explicitly added via the SPI in ConfigExtension. >>> >>> Are there any beans which would be found via `annotated` beans discovery >>> which are _not_ explicitly added in the extension? I also see that there >>> are plenty of Vitoed classes. >>> >>> I'm wondering if we could unify things to not use beans.xml at all, and >>> only use the extension SPI. This would ensure that things always work with >>> the new OSGi CDI spec. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -- >>> *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile> >>> (@rotty3000) >>> Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com> >>> (@Liferay) >>> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org> >>> (@OSGiAlliance) >>> >>
