I understood the opposite from Mark, ie use our existing config to exclude the "weird" jar.
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 jeu. 23 sept. 2021 à 21:47, Thomas Andraschko < andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> a écrit : > So you also think we should make it a default behavior to NOT scan a JAR > with extension and without beans.xml? > > Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> schrieb am Do., 23. Sept. 2021, > 21:26: > > > I personally did also wonder about this rather weird rule in the spec > some > > years ago. > > Back then we concluded that it is rather an unintended behaviour. I'm > > surprised that it's now used intentionally. If you have an Extension in a > > jar and only want to use programmatic beans, then why the hack does one > add > > e.g. an @ApplicationScoped annotation? This really sounds weird. So I'd > > rather simply use the existing jar-exclude in the scanning. > > > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > Am 22.09.2021 um 11:19 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > Le mer. 22 sept. 2021 à 11:17, Thomas Andraschko < > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > >> I really prefer to make the spec the default behavior, nobody expects > a > > JAR > > >> to be scanned without having a beans.xml but a extension > > >> normally if you would like to use CDI, but avoid scanning, you add a > CDI > > >> extension but no beans.xml, thats exactly like MF and Mojarra is > > >> implemented > > >> > > > > > > Just to correct that, several people expect a jar with an extension to > be > > > scanned in annotated mode without a beans.xml when it was full OWB from > > the > > > start. > > > This is why switching will silently break users. > > > So maybe a toggle with the same default than today + warning is saner. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Lets wait for other opinions :) > > >> > > >> > > >> Am Mi., 22. Sept. 2021 um 11:08 Uhr schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > >> > > >>> Think we should prefer our users over the spec for that so I'd be to > > >>> support it with a toggle to enable it > > >>> (org.apache.webbeans.skipJarWithExtensionScanning=false by default). > > >>> If needed we can add a bdascannerservice with it at true > > >> (WebSpecScanner). > > >>> And in 2.1 we can change it > > >>> > > >>> 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 mer. 22 sept. 2021 à 11:06, Thomas Andraschko < > > >>> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> I discussed with Romain about OWB-1298. > > >>>> > > >>>> Mojarra has NO beans.xml but a CDI Extension, which currently breaks > > >> OWB > > >>>> as: > > >>>> - WebsocketUserManager is scanned > > >>>> - WebsocketUserManager is added in the extension > > >>>> > > >>>> in the specs (12.1) its defined, that: > > >>>> > > >>>> An archive which: > > >>>> > > >>>> - > > >>>> > > >>>> contains a beans.xml file with the bean-discovery-mode of none, > or, > > >>>> - > > >>>> > > >>>> contains an extension and no beans.xml file > > >>>> > > >>>> is NOT a bean archive. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Which means that OWB should NOT scan Mojarra and therefore users can > > >> use > > >>>> Mojarra with OWB, without adding it to the scan exclusions or > setting > > >>> other > > >>>> properties. > > >>>> > > >>>> If MyFaces wouldnt be in the default exclusions, it would also break > > MF > > >>> and > > >>>> maybe other libs. > > >>>> > > >>>> We should fix it and make it the default behavior. > > >>>> > > >>>> It should even improve startup as we skip more archives per default. > > >>>> > > >>>> Romain mentioned that there could be cases, where it could break > apps. > > >> So > > >>>> we should maybe introduce a new config property to enable the old > > >>> behavior > > >>>> again, which also scans archives with extensions but without > beans.xml > > >>>> > > >>>> this is also related to org.apache.webbeans.scanBeansXmlOnly > > >>>> > > >>>> WDYT? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Best regards, > > >>>> > > >>>> Thomas > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
