Le 23 avr. 2018 21:50, "Rudy De Busscher" <[email protected]> a écrit :
Made progress in porting it to CDI 1.2 - Also used JSONP 1.0 (instead of 1.1) Wasnt it already the case? Good anyway - Used Producers instead of beans for each @Claim @Inject (as described here https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth/issues/32) I didnt pick that for two reasons 1. Easier to integrate in tomee and most containers which can bypass scanning with an extension driven impl 2. Easier to configure the scope when needed (spec defaults are crazy and almost not usable :() But if you kept the existing scopes and optimized (by type/claim) impl ut sounds good enough Issue will likely be to support all types 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >
