Re: [DISCUSS] ds for cdi 1.2+ only

[Mark Struberg]

I'd go for:
* 1.8.x: java7 + EE6This one is needed for older business applications. Yes, 
there are still servers running on Java7.


1.9.x: java8 + EE6There are also still a lot of WebSphere-8.5.x and JBoss EAP-6 
servers in production. Those got updates to Java8 but are still EE6! This is 
surely still 30% of the 'big' installations!

2.0.x: java8 + EE7This is likely the vast majority of production systems. What 
we would gain from switching to it is mainly to get rid of the 
'globalAlternatives' hack by using @Priority on all our built-in interceptors 
and Alternatives. But that otoh might also introduce a few minor backward 
compatibility issues for projects which made use of 'globalAlternative'. Apart 
from that I don't see much to improve.

Btw, I don't have CDI-2.0 on the radar. I think Apache Meecrowave and Hammock 
are the 2 only production ready EE8 servers right now. Maybe Payara up next in 
a few months and then JBoss EAP in some time. So who should use that? Apart 
from that, what would we effectively gain?
 
And yes, I do mostly care about real production. Happy to have a sandbox branch 
for playing around with CDI-2.0 features. But I'd not expect to become 
mainstream in big projects in the next half year.
LieGrue,strub
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018, 07:26:23 CEST, Gerhard Petracek 
 wrote:  
 
 the workarounds aren't that bad. it's just that we could drop more
reflection calls (similar to what we discussed for jdk8 and
java.util.Optional).

ok - i'll document details about the warnings during the bootstrapping
process (and if needed how to get rid of some of them).

regards,
gerhard



2018-04-04 6:13 GMT+02:00 Rudy De Busscher :

> I have not a clear view of the workarounds which are made and how
> 'bad'/hacky they are. But when we don't have major complaints about it (now
> or in the past) I would not invest too much time in a temporary version for
> CDI 1.2.
>
> so #3.
>
> Rudy
>
> On 3 April 2018 at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
>
> > All work for me and the apps i work on since a few years.
> >
> > Le 3 avr. 2018 22:17, "Thomas Andraschko" 
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > +1 for 3)
> > > the workarounds are really not that big...
> > >
> > > i would leave it as it is for now and start with DS 2.0 (= CDI2.0 only)
> > the
> > > next months.
> > >
> > > 2018-04-03 22:06 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> > >
> > > > hi @ all,
> > > >
> > > > since we will need to maintain v1.8.x for a while and it's too early
> > for
> > > > using cdi 2.0 (for a while), we should discuss if we should have one
> > > branch
> > > > using cdi 1.2+.
> > > > it would allow to get rid of several workarounds (and the
> corresponding
> > > > warnings during the bootstrapping process).
> > > >
> > > > we had a short discussion in the irc-channel about the following
> > options:
> > > > #1) ds v1.x as it is right now; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 1.2+
> > > >
> > > > vs
> > > >
> > > > #2) ds v1.8.x: as it is right now; ds > v1.8.x && < v2.x: jdk8 with
> cdi
> > > > v1.2+; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 2.0+
> > > >
> > > > vs
> > > >
> > > > #3) we don't care about v1.2 as a min. requirement at all
> > > > (the workarounds are minimal anyway and users can continue to ignore
> > the
> > > > warnings during the bootstrapping process)
> > > >
> > > > or for sure
> > > > #4) [any other nice suggestion]
> > > >
> > > > -> please send your preferred approach
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > gerhard
> > > >
> > >
> >
>  

Re: [DISCUSS] ds for cdi 1.2+ only

[Gerhard Petracek]

the workarounds aren't that bad. it's just that we could drop more
reflection calls (similar to what we discussed for jdk8 and
java.util.Optional).

ok - i'll document details about the warnings during the bootstrapping
process (and if needed how to get rid of some of them).

regards,
gerhard



2018-04-04 6:13 GMT+02:00 Rudy De Busscher :

> I have not a clear view of the workarounds which are made and how
> 'bad'/hacky they are. But when we don't have major complaints about it (now
> or in the past) I would not invest too much time in a temporary version for
> CDI 1.2.
>
> so #3.
>
> Rudy
>
> On 3 April 2018 at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
>
> > All work for me and the apps i work on since a few years.
> >
> > Le 3 avr. 2018 22:17, "Thomas Andraschko" 
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > +1 for 3)
> > > the workarounds are really not that big...
> > >
> > > i would leave it as it is for now and start with DS 2.0 (= CDI2.0 only)
> > the
> > > next months.
> > >
> > > 2018-04-03 22:06 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> > >
> > > > hi @ all,
> > > >
> > > > since we will need to maintain v1.8.x for a while and it's too early
> > for
> > > > using cdi 2.0 (for a while), we should discuss if we should have one
> > > branch
> > > > using cdi 1.2+.
> > > > it would allow to get rid of several workarounds (and the
> corresponding
> > > > warnings during the bootstrapping process).
> > > >
> > > > we had a short discussion in the irc-channel about the following
> > options:
> > > > #1) ds v1.x as it is right now; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 1.2+
> > > >
> > > > vs
> > > >
> > > > #2) ds v1.8.x: as it is right now; ds > v1.8.x && < v2.x: jdk8 with
> cdi
> > > > v1.2+; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 2.0+
> > > >
> > > > vs
> > > >
> > > > #3) we don't care about v1.2 as a min. requirement at all
> > > > (the workarounds are minimal anyway and users can continue to ignore
> > the
> > > > warnings during the bootstrapping process)
> > > >
> > > > or for sure
> > > > #4) [any other nice suggestion]
> > > >
> > > > -> please send your preferred approach
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > gerhard
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] ds for cdi 1.2+ only

[Rudy De Busscher]

I have not a clear view of the workarounds which are made and how
'bad'/hacky they are. But when we don't have major complaints about it (now
or in the past) I would not invest too much time in a temporary version for
CDI 1.2.

so #3.

Rudy

On 3 April 2018 at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau  wrote:

> All work for me and the apps i work on since a few years.
>
> Le 3 avr. 2018 22:17, "Thomas Andraschko"  a
> écrit :
>
> > +1 for 3)
> > the workarounds are really not that big...
> >
> > i would leave it as it is for now and start with DS 2.0 (= CDI2.0 only)
> the
> > next months.
> >
> > 2018-04-03 22:06 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> >
> > > hi @ all,
> > >
> > > since we will need to maintain v1.8.x for a while and it's too early
> for
> > > using cdi 2.0 (for a while), we should discuss if we should have one
> > branch
> > > using cdi 1.2+.
> > > it would allow to get rid of several workarounds (and the corresponding
> > > warnings during the bootstrapping process).
> > >
> > > we had a short discussion in the irc-channel about the following
> options:
> > > #1) ds v1.x as it is right now; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 1.2+
> > >
> > > vs
> > >
> > > #2) ds v1.8.x: as it is right now; ds > v1.8.x && < v2.x: jdk8 with cdi
> > > v1.2+; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 2.0+
> > >
> > > vs
> > >
> > > #3) we don't care about v1.2 as a min. requirement at all
> > > (the workarounds are minimal anyway and users can continue to ignore
> the
> > > warnings during the bootstrapping process)
> > >
> > > or for sure
> > > #4) [any other nice suggestion]
> > >
> > > -> please send your preferred approach
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > gerhard
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] ds for cdi 1.2+ only

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

All work for me and the apps i work on since a few years.

Le 3 avr. 2018 22:17, "Thomas Andraschko"  a
écrit :

> +1 for 3)
> the workarounds are really not that big...
>
> i would leave it as it is for now and start with DS 2.0 (= CDI2.0 only) the
> next months.
>
> 2018-04-03 22:06 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek :
>
> > hi @ all,
> >
> > since we will need to maintain v1.8.x for a while and it's too early for
> > using cdi 2.0 (for a while), we should discuss if we should have one
> branch
> > using cdi 1.2+.
> > it would allow to get rid of several workarounds (and the corresponding
> > warnings during the bootstrapping process).
> >
> > we had a short discussion in the irc-channel about the following options:
> > #1) ds v1.x as it is right now; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 1.2+
> >
> > vs
> >
> > #2) ds v1.8.x: as it is right now; ds > v1.8.x && < v2.x: jdk8 with cdi
> > v1.2+; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 2.0+
> >
> > vs
> >
> > #3) we don't care about v1.2 as a min. requirement at all
> > (the workarounds are minimal anyway and users can continue to ignore the
> > warnings during the bootstrapping process)
> >
> > or for sure
> > #4) [any other nice suggestion]
> >
> > -> please send your preferred approach
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
>

[DISCUSS] ds for cdi 1.2+ only

[Gerhard Petracek]

hi @ all,

since we will need to maintain v1.8.x for a while and it's too early for
using cdi 2.0 (for a while), we should discuss if we should have one branch
using cdi 1.2+.
it would allow to get rid of several workarounds (and the corresponding
warnings during the bootstrapping process).

we had a short discussion in the irc-channel about the following options:
#1) ds v1.x as it is right now; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 1.2+

vs

#2) ds v1.8.x: as it is right now; ds > v1.8.x && < v2.x: jdk8 with cdi
v1.2+; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 2.0+

vs

#3) we don't care about v1.2 as a min. requirement at all
(the workarounds are minimal anyway and users can continue to ignore the
warnings during the bootstrapping process)

or for sure
#4) [any other nice suggestion]

-> please send your preferred approach

regards,
gerhard