Le mer. 18 mai 2022 à 15:03, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I do wonder whether we're conflating the real issues of exposing the CDI > API (for @Typed) with the much smaller JSR330 API > Yes as soon as you have a different version needed by a plugin and the api exposed (parent first forced - and if not forced we dont know if it works). So we shouldnt leak what others can use in the API - no parent ClassRealm access. > > Does anyone have a link to an issue that specifically involved exporting > the JSR330 API (I did a quick search but the threads I found were all about > the CDI API) > IIRC there was only one external plugin/extension that ever used @Typed, so > we could easily just stop exporting the CDI API while continuing to export > JSR330 > > (other comments inline below...) > > On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 10:52, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have used SLF4J and JSR330 in plugins for years without issue. They all > > still work and nothing has mysteriously stopped working even made 7+ > years > > ago. I honestly don’t see much point in making our own annotations, and > > I’ve not encountered any of the issues Romain presents. > > > > To Romain’s points: > > > > 1. I don’t see it as an issue that two entirely different universes of > > classes don’t work 100% in the same classloader. Just fork and use a > > separate process as these two universes were never meant to actually run > in > > the same classloader. They don’t run that way in production so why would > > you try doing that during a build or testing. > > > > 2. I don’t think that’s an issue, if we wanted to augment what we do with > > another CI spec we can with Sisu. I think any of the standard CI > > specifications provide everything we might potentially need. We may not > use > > them now, but Sisu would allow us to use which ever spec we wished, in > > whatever combination we wish. Stuart, correct me if I’m wrong. > > > > Yes, supporting different annotations is one of the main features of Sisu - > it doesn't force you to export a particular API (the previous decision to > export JSR330 to plugins was because it was a standard, so it made it > easier to share injectable components between Maven and other ecosystems > without having to continually write adapters - but it's not a fundamental > requirement) > > > > 3. It’s been fine for how many years? Sisu is our defense here, it can > > look at annotation A or B and provide the same behavior for the user. I’m > > sure Stuart can show us how to get javax.inject and jakarta.inject > working > > simultaneously for a co-existence and/or transition. Again Stuart, > correct > > me if I’m wrong. > > > > There's an initial PR to add jakarta.inject support to Guice which people > are working on - once that's in the changes needed in Sisu are relatively > small. > > > > Jason > > > > > On May 16, 2022, at 1:14 PM, Slawomir Jaranowski < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > But from other side we can use JSR-330 in Mojo [1] > > > > > > so we will: > > > > > > @Parameter( defaultValue = "${project}", readonly = true, required = > > > true ) > > > private MavenProject project; > > > > > > @Inject > > > public SuperMojo( Jsr330Component component ) > > > { > > > } > > > > > > From code perspective will be clear > > > > > > @Inject > > > public SuperMojo( MavenProject project, Jsr330Component component ) > > > { > > > } > > > > > > > > > [1] https://maven.apache.org/maven-jsr330.html > > > > > > pon., 16 maj 2022 o 18:42 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > > napisał(a): > > > > > >> Hi Sławomir, > > >> > > >> This is a complex topic, basically there is a will to get a real IoC > for > > >> maven-core and keep a maven specific API for plugin writers so I'm > > tempted > > >> to say option 1 for mojo. > > >> > > >> As a reminder the issues exposing @Inject are: > > >> > > >> 1. We can conflict with plugins (it is the case already and a lot of > > >> servers have to workaround that with custom classloaders) > > >> 2. We have no guarantee next version of @Inject will be compatible - > > there > > >> is a trend to break at jakarta EE > > >> 3. When we'll want to migrate to jakarta.inject (or another API) we'll > > >> break all consumers if it is used outside maven project itself > > >> > > >> Where this policy has its limitations is that extensions are now kind > of > > >> "plugins" in the sense it should only use a public API but currently > it > > has > > >> to use internal one (@Inject). > > >> So while I think option 1 is really the way to go, we probably have > some > > >> work to extend it to extension mid-term and clean the API for maven 4. > > >> > > >> Hope it helps. > > >> > > >> 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 > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> Le lun. 16 mai 2022 à 18:13, Slawomir Jaranowski < > > [email protected]> > > >> a > > >> écrit : > > >> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> We can inject Maven components into plugins in many ways ... > > >>> > > >>> We can use @Parameter, like: > > >>> > > >>> @Parameter( defaultValue = "${project}", readonly = true, > required = > > >>> true ) > > >>> private MavenProject project; > > >>> > > >>> @Parameter( defaultValue = "${session}", readonly = true, > required = > > >>> true ) > > >>> private MavenSession session; > > >>> > > >>> @Parameter( defaultValue = "${mojoExecution}", readonly = true, > > >>> required = true ) > > >>> private MojoExecution mojoExecution; > > >>> > > >>> We can use DI with @org.apache.maven.plugins.annotations.Component > > >>> > > >>> @Component > > >>> private MavenProject project; > > >>> > > >>> @Component > > >>> private MavenSession session; > > >>> > > >>> @Component > > >>> private MojoExecution mojoExecution; > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> We can use DI with @javax.inject.Inject on fields ... > > >>> > > >>> @Inject > > >>> private MavenProject project; > > >>> > > >>> @Inject > > >>> private MavenSession session; > > >>> > > >>> @Inject > > >>> private MojoExecution mojoExecution; > > >>> > > >>> And DI with constructor: > > >>> > > >>> @Inject > > >>> public SuperMojo( MavenProject project, MavenSession session, > > >>> MojoExecution execution ) > > >>> { > > >>> } > > >>> > > >>> Which way should be preferred, which one to avoid? And why? > > >>> Can we use DI for all Maven components? > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Sławomir Jaranowski > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sławomir Jaranowski > > > > A master in the art of living draws no sharp distinction between his work > > and his play; his labor and his leisure; his mind and his body; his > > education and his recreation. He hardly knows which is which. He simply > > pursues his vision of excellence through whatever he is doing, and leaves > > others to determine whether he is working or playing. To himself, he > always > > appears to be doing both. > > > > -- François-René de Chateaubriand > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
