2018-04-23 16:34 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > Qualifiers are per CDI spec not AnnotatedTypes. > So if we rely on this then it's not spec compliant anyway. >
Ok wording is poor here but CDI 2.0 enables you to override a qualifier with a configurator which ends up on an annotated type replacing the plain reflection for the qualifier. That's what I meant. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 23.04.2018 um 14:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > >: > > > > the extension modifies @Claim to remove @NonBinding. This requires the > impl to support to read qualifiers as AnnotatedType and only OWB 2.0.5 > supports it in OWB series ATM > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > 2018-04-23 14:18 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > Whats the qualifier issue you're referring to? > > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 8:05 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Same here, I just doubt we have an owb impl supporting the qualifier > model change today so we can stay on OWB 2.0.5 or need to backport it to > 1.x as well (which can likely be the case as well but can need to be done > in parallel). > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > 2018-04-23 13:17 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > If you already have a PR submitted even better. We should accept it. > > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:07 AM Rudy De Busscher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Not that hard, except maybe for the NonBinding thing which is removed > from @Claim. > > > > All the rest was done in 20 minutes or so. > > > > On 23 April 2018 at 13:03, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Overall same view here. > > How hard is it to make it 1.2 compliant? > > > > > > Le lun. 23 avr. 2018 à 12:25, John D. Ament <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > MP has made it very clear they don't care about portable libraries, and > only care about the vendor provided solutions. The requirement is that > vendors provide a CDI 1.2 runtime to use. Liberty provides a way to switch > between them (1.2, 2.0). I think Swarm may have moved to 2.0; not sure. > > > > I think Safeguard also compiles against CDI 2.0, but I don't think I'm > using any 2.0 features in it so it may run properly against 1.2. > > > > Personally, if we have a user who wants it for 1.2, and the effort is > minimal we should appease that user to help build out the community. > > > > John > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:17 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > current codebase uses cdi 2.0 which means it can be used on tomee, > meecrowave, openwebbeans etc... > > > > Rudy opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6604 to move > it to cdi 1.2 - BTW "Microprofile depends on CDI 1.2, so using 2.0 is > wrong." is wrong since some years you can always use a version *>=* of the > minimum requirement for spec impls. > > Technically I don't see a strong need to do it but I'd like to get your > feeling about it to know what we do of the issue. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > > > > >
