On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 14:15, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). > There's only ever been one version of the JSR 330 API because it's so small and complete (and I'd be surprised if the jakarta.inject API is any different...) > 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] > > > > > > > > >
