commited the patch, created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/branches/tomee-owb-1.1.x/
note: versions are atm the same *Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* 2013/4/18 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > well, the point is we'll need to update to OWB and since the changes are > important (internals really changed) we can't wait a late update if we > don't want TomEE to be forgotten for other servers because too late on the > market or because it has no more activity at all. > > I did the update to see regressions introduced by OWB rewritting (a bunch > since OWB doesn't care about EJB and some CDI tests not activated in the > build) > > In the important changes i like to import: > * asm proxying instead of javassist (avoid mem leak + faster) > * better decorator/interceptor impl (before we had cases almost impossible > to handle leading to infinite loops) > * better architecture to prepare CDI 1.1 (TomEE 2?) > * i removed our custom beansDeployer to use the OWB one (avoiding a fork > part) > > @Andy: my answer was not against you but it was rather a warning saying if > we want tomee stays alive we need to find a way to support new important > changes and to stay active > > last time cdi was introduced David broke the build for months and nobody > said anything because it was David but having a clear solution for such > changes is probably better > > CDI being more and more important (in term of popularity and in our code) > i think it is a good candidate to find a solution to this issue (+ a big > part of the work is done ;) > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > 2013/4/18 AndyG <andy.gumbre...@orprovision.com> > >> I would only to ensure that the current trunk we have (which seems to be >> really stable right now) is available as a stable branch for potential bug >> fixing. >> >> What does OWB 1.2 bring to the party (your opinion, not that of OWB)? >> >> I am almost fanatical about updating libraries, so don't think I am >> against >> this! >> >> Andy >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/OWB-1-2-tp4662300p4662329.html >> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >
