[jira] [Assigned] (OWB-1107) Scanning mode: Like Annotated but send PAT allowing Extensions to add beans

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1107?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Mark Struberg reassigned OWB-1107: -- Assignee: Mark Struberg > Scanning mode: Like Annotated but send PAT allowing Extensions to add

[jira] [Commented] (OWB-1107) Scanning mode: Like Annotated but send PAT allowing Extensions to add beans

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1107?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15125267#comment-15125267 ] Mark Struberg commented on OWB-1107: I introduced a bean-discovery-mode='scoped'. In that mode all

[jira] [Commented] (OWB-1107) Scanning mode: Like Annotated but send PAT allowing Extensions to add beans

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1107?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15125277#comment-15125277 ] Mark Struberg commented on OWB-1107: this is also likely part of CDI-2.0:

Re: moving to owb-1.7.0-SNAPSHOT?

+1 2016-01-31 12:59 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > hi folks! > > While implementing OWB-1107 I had to introduce a subinterface of > ScannerService called ‚BdaScannerService‘ > While OWB deployer works find with both old ScannerService and new > BdaScannerService SPI impls it

moving to owb-1.7.0-SNAPSHOT?

hi folks! While implementing OWB-1107 I had to introduce a subinterface of ScannerService called ‚BdaScannerService‘ While OWB deployer works find with both old ScannerService and new BdaScannerService SPI impls it might probably be better to indicate the new SPI by moving the minor number? I

Re: moving to owb-1.7.0-SNAPSHOT?

1.6.3 is good since it is rarely used by *users*. Also not sure we need both SPI since we have bba handling elsewhere and I think scanner service responsability should stay lower level than bda which is a CDI thing to make it useful - keep integration with other filesystems typically. Le 31 janv.

Re: moving to owb-1.7.0-SNAPSHOT?

+1 for what? staying with 1.6.x or moving to 1.7.x? txs and LieGrue, strub > Am 31.01.2016 um 13:06 schrieb Thomas Andraschko > : > > +1 > > 2016-01-31 12:59 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> hi folks! >> >> While implementing OWB-1107 I had to

Re: moving to owb-1.7.0-SNAPSHOT?

+1 for 1.7 but as romain said, i'm also very sure this is rarely used by users. 2016-01-31 16:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > +1 for what? staying with 1.6.x or moving to 1.7.x? > > txs and LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 31.01.2016 um 13:06 schrieb Thomas Andraschko < >