I don't see any reason for any -alpha or whatever release. We did never claim
to be a certified implementation in the past, nor likely will we in the future.
We try to pass as much from the TCK as makes sense and report/challenge TCK
tests which disrespect/contradict the spec wording and/or JavaDoc of the API.
Most of those challenge tickets have been bulk-closed and never really
addressed for the past CDI versions. So my will to go hunt for the carrot in
front of my nose is not infinite ("endenwollend" as we say here in Vienna).
If someone wants to address/implement the CDI-lite functionality (s)he is
perfectly welcome to do so. I doubt I will find the time to do it.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 30.01.2023 um 14:48 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>
> * +1 to drop jetty plugin for now
> * +-0 to shade cdi-api (nobody will consume it anyway)
> * -1 to release to not milestone without being spec compliant - including
> cdi-lite which is part of cdi-core (even if we all disagree), minimum for
> me is to provide an openwebbeans-lite module implementing the cdi extension
> making it supported, +1 to get a 4.0.0-alpha1 if 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. 30 janv. 2023 à 14:43, Thomas Andraschko <
> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> all sounds good to me
>>
>> Am Mo., 30. Jan. 2023 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb Mark Struberg
>> <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
>>
>>> hi folks!
>>>
>>> We are up and running with passing most CDI-4.0 TCK tests.
>>> There are a few areas where we have excluded some tests:
>>>
>>> * CDI-lite. I'll not gonna implement this in OWB as it is purely for
>>> Quarkus and I don't care. It should be straight forward to implement the
>>> functionality as OWB plugin if someone really needs it though.
>>> * Some challenged tests, some unspecified behaviour in some tests. E.g.
>>> they assume a specified order class annotations before method annotations
>>> for Interceptors. But the spec *explicitly* says that for Interceptors
>> with
>>> the same @Priority the order is unspecified.
>>> * backward incompatible reversing the default bean-discovery-mode for
>>> empty beans.xmls. I'll not gonna implement this as it also did break the
>>> JakartaEE rules alltogether.
>>>
>>>
>>> Things I want to change yet before the release:
>>>
>>> * Decide about the jetty9 plugin. Tbh I'd keep it excluded until someone
>>> wants to contribute fixes to it.
>>> * provide a shaded version of the CDI api jar without all the CDI-lite
>>> parts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wdyt?
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
