geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jcdi_2.0 spec jar
Date Tue, 27 Jun 2017 12:55:09 GMT
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 <struberg@yahoo.de> a écrit :

> 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!
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org>:
> >
> > 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 <struberg@yahoo.de>:
> > +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 OWB surely also needs some
> proper review.
> > It used to work in 2010 on Equinox, but never used it ever since.
> > So it might be good to check whether it is a.) still needed and b.)
> works at all these days ;)
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > > Am 27.06.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > 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 OSGi? Any OSGi guru able to help on it?
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> > >
> > > 2017-06-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-specs/blob/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/CDI.java#L54
> > >
> > > I know the latter does not work on OSGi environments, it relies on
> TCCL.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > > 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
> ship some patches which improve OSGi support?
> > > I'd happy to also work on improved OSGi support over at OpenWebBeans.
> > > But that's kind of 'improvement' and not a blocker for a release again
> imo, isn't?
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > > > Am 27.06.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > -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 <struberg@yahoo.de>:
> > > > 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 artifact (signature comparison
> passed).
> > > >
> > > > The staging repo is:
> > > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/
> > > >
> > > > The source release and binary is here:
> > > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1034/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_2.0_spec/1.0/
> > > >
> > > > Please VOTE:
> > > >
> > > > [+1] yeah, let's ship it!
> > > > [+0] meh, don't care
> > > > [-1] nope, because ${showstopper}
> > > >
> > > > The VOTE is open for 72h
> > > >
> > > > Here is my own +1
> > > >
> > > > txs and LieGrue,
> > > > strub
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message