+1 let's get rid of it!
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 24.05.2022 um 15:48 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO :
>
> I don't think they do much with it either to be honest.
> If we keep it, I would upgrade Tomcat in OWB.
> If we yank the integration because it's not used anyways, I'm ok with it.
>
> Le mar. 24
hi folks!
I had an idea about how we could implement CDI-4.0 without all the overhead it
brings.
The goal is to keep OWB as light as possible but as compatible as possible.
The idea is to use the standard eclipse jcdi package and split it in 2 parts
via maven-shade plugin or simple unzip/zip
Hi,
Some times ago I proposed to extract a cdi-like-light owb bundle which
would be a minimal IoC without the cdi 2.0 boilerplate and probably unsafe
free to be "all env friendly". This is very close to owb-se except a few
spi, defaults and jakarta dep.
Making it cdi-se/ee as an impl sounds more
would imo introduce too many layers which might be hard to maintain in the long
run. With the current plugin structure you can already run without even class
scanning and dynamic bytecode tinkering if one wants.
So don't think it's worth to add another layer of abstraction in the middle.
+1
txs and LieGrue,
strub
> Am 25.05.2022 um 02:24 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to get your help on the Apache OpenWebBeans 2.0.27 release.
> The changes are fairly small, essentially it fixes the relocation patterns
> for jakarta compatibility, and it does include
