https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #24 from Mark Thomas ---
I have no objection to a back-port now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe,
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #23 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #22)
> So the fix will be in 10.0.6, will see if/when/how it can be backported to 9
> and 8.5.
Should I backport now or should it be tested in 10.0.6 before
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #22 from Remy Maucherat ---
So the fix will be in 10.0.6, will see if/when/how it can be backported to 9
and 8.5.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #21 from Grzegorz Grzybek ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #20)
> (In reply to Grzegorz Grzybek from comment #19)
> > What do you think?
>
> That it would be a separate issue.
>
> I would say interfaces are not
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #20 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Grzegorz Grzybek from comment #19)
> What do you think?
That it would be a separate issue.
I would say interfaces are not supposed to be there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #19 from Grzegorz Grzybek ---
Hmm, another observation. I've added java.util.EventListener.class to
@HandlesTypes and I got ... a lot of stuff, including:
```
1 = {@3229} "interface javax.faces.validator.Validator"
...
3 = {@3230}
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #18 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to romain.manni-bucau from comment #14)
> Hi Mark and Rémy,
>
> I'm not sure I got your last comment since the patch on 10.0.6-dev breaks
> the backward compatibility as such (ie you run a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #17 from Grzegorz Grzybek ---
By the way, I checked that in Jetty there are
org.eclipse.jetty.annotations.AnnotationParser.MyFieldVisitor/MyMethodVisitor/MyClassVisitor
visitors that handle each case.
--
You are receiving this
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #16 from romain.manni-bucau ---
Ok, let's do it in lazy mode (can it be highlighted in the release announce
mail though please?)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #15 from Mark Thomas ---
I see no need to make this configurable at this point.
My default position for specification compliance related issues such as this is
that it is better for applications to fix their bugs than for Tomcat
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #14 from romain.manni-bucau ---
Hi Mark and Rémy,
I'm not sure I got your last comment since the patch on 10.0.6-dev breaks the
backward compatibility as such (ie you run a working app on 10.0.5 and then
upgrade on 1.0.0.6-dev and
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #13 from Mark Thomas ---
Using my Jira based test the impact of this change is an increase in scan time
of ~2.3%. That is a lot lower than I expected and small enough that I'd have no
objection to the patch standing as is.
I
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #12 from Remy Maucherat ---
I added simple code in 10 to handle this. If it works ok without regressions,
even unintended ones, it can be backported.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #11 from romain.manni-bucau ---
Context or contextconfig configuration is fine since most integrations have
listeners already no?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #10 from Mark Thomas ---
I like it. That does almost certainly mean one breaking change now to introduce
the pluggable API. Would we consider ServiceLoader for this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #9 from romain.manni-bucau ---
Maybe it is an opportunity to make it properly pluggable. Most tomcat
integrators drops that part to use their own scanner (tomee uses xbean, pax
uses osgi flavor of xbean, others bypasses it, some
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #8 from Mark Thomas ---
I've been thinking about implementation options. It looks relatively simple
although there is potential complexity depending on the extent to which we are
concerned about retaining current behaviour of
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #7 from Remy Maucherat ---
Although not urgent at all, the specification seems very clear now that I have
reviewed it (annotations on fields and method do count). I'll try to do
something about it next week to see how it can work.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #6 from romain.manni-bucau ---
If it helps:
1. TomEE already does it and cost of reading the full class can be limited by
adjusting well the buffer size
2. Never use a real use case for "not class" level and worse cases frameworks
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #4 from romain.manni-bucau ---
Hi,
Not sure it changed in last release but since javaee 6 (to at least EE8) it was
only about types:
https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/servlet/annotation/HandlesTypes.html:
> Set of
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #3 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #1)
> Looks like a Tomcat bug to me. That no-one has hit this bug in the 10+ years
> since the first Tomcat 7 release (where support for this was first added)
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #2 from Grzegorz Grzybek ---
I don't think TCK tests this - otherwise it'd be caught.
In my personal opinion, annotations from @HandlesTypes should be checked only
at class level, not at the method level.
On the other hand, "8.1
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
Looks like a Tomcat bug to me. That no-one has hit this bug in the 10+ years
since the first Tomcat 7 release (where support for this was first added)
suggests it is a very rarely used feature but we should
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65244
Grzegorz Grzybek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gr.grzy...@gmail.com
--
You are
25 matches
Mail list logo
