+1 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 22:19, Thomas Andraschko < andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> a écrit : > OK > Then lets please create a new property to enable spec behavior > We could also add it to our default excludes > > > > Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> schrieb am Do., 23. Sept. 2021, > 22:07: > > > I think the current OWB behaviour is more correct from a user POV, even > if > > it's not 100% what the spec defines. > > We can easily solve the Mojarra issue with a jar-exclude. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > Am 23.09.2021 um 21:47 schrieb Thomas Andraschko < > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > 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 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
