Should not. The CDI Extension is completely independent from the beans.xml file. It should get picked up in any case. Otherwise it's likely an implementation bug.
LieGrue, strub > Am 21.08.2018 um 19:51 schrieb John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > 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 (@rotty3000) > Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) > Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance (@OSGiAlliance)
