[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-931?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13895542#comment-13895542
 ] 

Mark Struberg commented on OWB-931:
-----------------------------------

I c. Do you have control over the ClassLoader which loads the BeanManagerImpl 
and the SingletonService? If you could force your classloader to load the whole 
OWB stuff with the WAB Classloader, then I'd know a trick which might help. We 
could look whether the Bean class is defined in some parent classloader of the 
BeanManager and in this case use the ClassLoader of the BeanManager. So any 
class 'outside' of the BeanManagers ClassLoader would only be loaded with the 
BeanManagers ClassLoader and not with any of it's parent ClassLoaders.

> NormalScopeProxyFactory classloader usage
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OWB-931
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-931
>             Project: OpenWebBeans
>          Issue Type: Brainstorming
>          Components: Core
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.0
>            Reporter: Moritz Bechler
>              Labels: ClassLoader, OSGI
>
> createNormalScopeProxy currently uses the bean class ClassLoader for two 
> purposes:
> 1. defining the proxy class
> 2. instantiation of the instance provider.
> In our OSGI/WAB environment this usage does not make much sense:
> 1. the proxy class should be defined in the classloader which most closely 
> reflects the CDI context lifecycle, which is the web context TCCL. 
> 2. causes trouble with scope providers (e.g OWB's own 
> RequestScopedBeanInterceptorHandler) when they are defined in another bundle. 
> I don't think there is a proper compatible solution to this (except maybe 
> making extensions fragments) but also trying the TCCL makes this much more 
> painless to use.
> Is there any explanation for this particular choice of classloaders? Are 
> there any reasons not to try TCCL first?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)

Reply via email to