On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Raymond Auge <[email protected]> wrote:
> Romain, to clarify your question about testing, which I'm only now finally > grasped; I wouldn't want to add such tests just yet because the OSGi CDI > integration spec is not final, nor is the RI. So I wouldn't want to add > SNAPSHOT things into the already usable geronimo-config-impl. > > However, once it's final it will be very simple to add tests just like you > have for the other runtimes. > > Does that make sense? > > - Ray > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:22 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In any case we must guarantee that the beans we need do not get picked up >> twice (via Extension manually + scanning). >> >> > The OSGi CDI spec is based on CDI 2.0. We didn't want to build >> something new that started with legacy. >> >> Except that EE8 is not yet widely used. >> But having geronimo-config based on EE7 doesn't restrict osgi-cdi from >> using it. It's all perfectly backward compatible. >> > Very true! - Ray > >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> > Am 21.08.2018 um 20:16 schrieb Raymond Auge <[email protected]>: >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 (@rotty3000) >> > Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) >> > Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance (@OSGiAlliance) >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Raymond Augé (@rotty3000) >> > Senior Software Architect Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) >> > Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance (@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)
