Made progress in porting it to CDI 1.2 - Also used JSONP 1.0 (instead of 1.1) - Used Producers instead of beans for each @Claim @Inject (as described here https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/32)
Still a bit hacky and not all producers created, but my demo app with injection of JsonWebToken, JsonString Claim and String Claim are already working. Rudy On 23 April 2018 at 16:41, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > This is what does the extension, the not CDI 1 features used are only > configurators to override the @Claim model (this one is only supported for > OWB >= 2.0.5 even in the spec since more - at least 2.0.0) + to create > beans (this one is easy to solve adding a custom Bean+PassivationCapable > impl) > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > > 2018-04-23 16:38 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > >> I can look at the code later but what I had to do before is capture all >> of the claim injection points and provide specific producers for each. >> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 10:35 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Qualifiers are per CDI spec not AnnotatedTypes. >>> So if we rely on this then it's not spec compliant anyway. >>> >>> 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >
