Here's how all that would look on geronimo-config (minus any beans that need to be added that wouldn't if beans.xml was ignored... if any.)
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config/pull/5 - Ray On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Raymond Auge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Keeping the beans.xml is no harm (for OSGi CDI) provided the beans are > added via the SPI also (is that an issue?) OSGi CDI will simply ignore the > beans.xml (in portable extension bundles). > > The reason this is the case is that the OSGi CDI wants to be able to > preserve the sanctity of the class spaces between bundles providing > extensions and bundles providing the application beans. This way OSGi CDI > doesn't have to operate at all on any classes of the portable extension > bundles, it consumes the extension implementations as services, the > services add the beans programmatically and the separate is nice and clean. > > >> >> 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. >>> >> > Like I said, we could keep the beams.xml it's not a problem. > > >> >>> 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. >>>> >>> > That would be my preference as well. > > >> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> > The OSGi CDI spec is based on CDI 2.0. We didn't want to build something > new that started with legacy. > > Cheers, > - Ray > > >> >>>> 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) >>>>> >>>> > > > -- > *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) > -- *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)
