Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Well, I'm willing to fix some OSGi issues... and I was thinking about Geronimo, not all OSGi related issues in the world ;-) In particular, ensuring OWB works in OSGi is a big task, for which I don't have enough time unfortunately... I did some work some time ago on pax-cdi RC2, but the OSGi EEG

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

On the EJB EC side of things I haven't heard anything in that regard Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 14:59, Mark Struberg a écrit : > I think there was a new spec paper wording for transaction in EE8. > But I have no information whether there also was any API change? > > Do you as EJB

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

I think there was a new spec paper wording for transaction in EE8. But I have no information whether there also was any API change? Do you as EJB EG member have more information on that? txs and LieGrue, strub > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:55 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO : > > I

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

I agree. If you could fixing the OSGi issues that'd be great. In addition to OWB, Meecrowave could also benefit from it. BTW, if we could check and validate the transaction spec, that'd be fantastic. Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 14:38, Mark Struberg a écrit : > txs and ping :D >

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

txs and ping :D Nah, seriously, we are in the process of releasing OWB-2.0 _very_ soon. OWB already passes the CDI 2.0 TCK! So it would be really great if you could take a look and help us with OSGi support! It would be awesome if OWB would 'just work' in Karaf and other ASF OSGi projects!

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Changing my vote to +1. And feel free to ping me when preparing a release so that I can have a look at the OSGi stuff. 2017-06-27 14:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg : > +1 > > We should also fix the point John raised. > John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

+1 We should also fix the point John raised. John, you should now have committer rights, could you plz raise a ticket and commit it? :D @Guillaume, I think we currently only have 2 binding votes (Romain and me), so any 'help' would be appreciated ;) That reminds we that the osgi module in

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

well ServiceLoader doesn't work in OSGi in general - that's why we had that old ProviderLocator but this one has the issue to not always be well shaded making classes duplicated and leadind to issues too. I propose we let this vote pass and see if we can do better with more recent versions of

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

2017-06-27 13:38 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg : > Hi Guillaume! > > I totally agree, but does this really block this release? > I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions. > Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not >

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

I just looked, the implementation of ServiceLoader is different for SeContainerInitializer and CDIProvider. https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/se/SeContainerInitializer.java#L47

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Hi Guillaume! I totally agree, but does this really block this release? I just moved over the OSGi setup from jcdi-1.1 and changed the versions. Is there any OSGi related bug I did overlook or is the support so far not enough? Would it work for you to get this version out of the door and then

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

-0 It would be nice to have all the new specs released in an OSGi compatible way or not include OSGi support. The current state (OSGi metadata, but no way to find the provider) is not very satisfying imho. 2017-06-27 11:16 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg : > Hi! > > I'd like to call

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

+1 and especially happy to not see alpha in the version #! On Jun 27, 2017 5:16 AM, "Mark Struberg" wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in > version 1.0 > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is >

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

+1 Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

+1 (nonbinding) > Am 27.06.2017 um 11:17 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO : > > Awesome > > +1 > > Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 11:16, Mark Struberg > a écrit : > Hi! > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec

Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar

Awesome +1 Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 11:16, Mark Struberg a écrit : > Hi! > > I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing our geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar in > version 1.0 > This is the API for CDI-2.0. The artifact does pass the CDI TCK and is > binary compatible with the official