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
20
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:
> A
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 Ger
+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 (fo
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
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16423665#comment-16423665
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on DELTASPIKE-1324:
-