Up, Encountered a few bugs related to this regression, wonder how we want to tackle it. My 2cts would be to drop cdi-api and replace the single used annotation from there by a maven one. If we don't want to break plugins (not sure any use that) we can rewrite it with asm or equivalent at load time since we own the classloading.
Anyone having an opinion on that? 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> Le mar. 6 févr. 2018 à 18:02, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > commented inline > > > 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> > > 2018-02-06 17:51 GMT+01:00 Stuart McCulloch <mccu...@gmail.com>: > >> On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 13:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> > 2018-02-06 12:25 GMT+01:00 Stuart McCulloch <mccu...@gmail.com (mailto: >> mccu...@gmail.com)>: >> > >> > > The "javax.enterprise.inject" CDI package was explicitly exported as >> part >> > > of the ongoing effort to migrate legacy Plexus components onto more >> modern >> > > standard annotations. >> > > >> > >> > >> > Hmm, this looks wrong from my window cause Maven doesn't support CDI >> API - >> > guice doesn't. So it is an interpretation of a well defined API which >> is by >> > defintion a bad public API, no? >> > >> > >> >> Raw Guice supports JSR330, but requires programmatic configuration (ie. >> bindings defined in modules) >> >> Sisu builds on Guice to add support for things like annotation scanning >> and wiring, injectable collections that dynamically update as plugins come >> and go, property placeholders, etc. >> >> If the CDI annotations are on the classpath then it also honours the >> @Typed annotation. This was a feature request to help migrate certain >> components from other Plexus-based applications over to JSR330 + @Typed. At >> the time there was a consideration that the rest of the CDI annotations >> would eventually be supported, as another compatibility layer. >> >> Sisu also provides a Plexus compatibility layer that supports Plexus >> annotations and XML >> >> Maven 3.x switched to Sisu so old Plexus-based components can still be >> used, while modern components can be written with JSR330. At the time of >> the switch it was decided to enable support for @Typed in Maven >> plugins/extensions (because there was a developer need for this feature, >> but that may well have changed and no longer be relevant). >> >> So Maven currently honours using @Typed on components - if it’s decided >> that Maven doesn’t want to support @Typed in plugins then just remove the >> export and exclude the cdi-api jar. As mentioned previously support for >> @Typed is used by other downstream non-Maven applications so it will always >> be something the container supports, but it's totally optional so if you >> don’t want it then you don’t need to ship the cdi-api jar. >> > > Yes but having the full API for one class is luxury (see later comment for > the detail) > > >> > >> > > >> > > Specifically, the @javax.enterprise.inject.Typed annotation lets >> > > components state they are only visible for injection under a specific >> type, >> > > rather than any type in their hierarchy. >> > > >> > > There’s no annotation to control binding visibility in JSR330, >> because it >> > > deliberately avoids configuration concerns, which is why we went with >> the >> > > closest standard annotation (@Typed from JSR299 aka CDI). While we >> could >> > > have decided to use our own annotation - and the container does in >> fact >> > > support using @org.eclipse.sisu.Typed - this is not standardised or >> > > portable. Also note the container will continue to support this >> (optional) >> > > feature for other downstream users, regardless of what’s decided here >> - the >> > > question is whether Maven still wants to use this feature and whether >> it >> > > wants to use the standard annotation or not. >> > > >> > > Another point is that whichever annotation is chosen must be >> > > visible/defined from the same classloader to both core and plugins. >> If the >> > > annotation is not exported then core and each plugin will end up with >> a >> > > different @Typed class, defined by different classloaders. Any use of >> > > @Typed in plugins would then effectively be invisible to the >> container, >> > > because the JVM’s AnnotatedElement API (getAnnotation, >> isAnnotationPresent, >> > > etc.) work off classes and not name equivalence. >> > > >> > > Similarly shading won’t work because neither the plugin’s components >> nor >> > > the container would know about the shaded package. >> > > >> > >> > >> > Hmm, not sure. I mean it works in most projects and it is easy to expose >> > the shaded API so not a big deal *technically*. Agree it would be a bad >> > solution to use a misused API publicly. >> > >> > >> >> By “not work” I really meant “not practical”. It’s not enough to just >> shade the CDI jar, you’d also need to shade the container - being careful >> that its reflective calls were properly updated (since it uses reflection >> to decide whether to load the feature or not). TBH all that work is >> overkill, since the container already supports an alternative annotation: >> @org.eclipse.sisu.Typed >> > > works for me > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > As you can see from the thread in http://maven.40175.n5.nabble. >> > > com/Linkage-error-td5784411.html a number of alternative solutions >> have >> > > been discussed before, including narrowing the export to: >> > > >> > > "javax.enterprise.inject.Typed" >> > > >> > > as that’s the only annotation we’re currently interested in. Since >> @Typed >> > > hasn’t changed between 1.x and 2.x that should be a workable solution, >> > > assuming you wanted to keep using the standard annotation. >> > > >> > > Removing the export (and thereby removing the feature to limit >> injection >> > > visibility to a specific type) was also discussed, and at the time >> Igor >> > > asked for it to be kept: >> > > >> > > “Please keep @Typed annotation available outside of core. >> > > >> > > I use @Typed annotation in one of my (private) core extensions where I >> > > need a class to implement an interface but not make that interface >> > > visible for injection in other components.” >> > > >> > >> > >> > Issue is I can say the opposite "I use this in my plugin cause I use >> CDI to >> > impl my plugin, please ignore it for all Maven usage". Both are valid >> and >> > therefore the Maven API shouldn't have any overlapping. >> > >> > >> >> Whenever you embed a container inside any kind of plugin you’re at the >> mercy of what’s exposed to that plugin - whether that plugin is running in >> Maven, Jenkins, or an IDE. If you want full control/sanity then use a >> custom classloader to isolate the embedded container from the plugin’s >> environment, and just let through those packages you expect to be provided. >> >> For example, say we did fully support CDI 1.x components inside plugins >> (as in the entire API was supported). You’d still have an issue embedding a >> CDI 2.x container, because of the API clash, unless you used a custom >> classloader between the plugin and the embedded container. >> > > Yes but would have complained way earlier ;) > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Assuming Igor still needs this feature then the only other option >> would be >> > > to ask him if he can move to the non-standard >> @org.eclipse.sisu.Typed. The >> > > existing CDI export could then be replaced by exporting >> “org.eclipse.sisu”. >> > > Once that was done then the cdi-api dependency could be excluded from >> the >> > > distribution, as the container will still work without it on the >> classpath >> > > (it’s only required if you want to use the standard CDI annotation). >> > > >> > > So to summarise, the options are: >> > > >> > > a) Continue to support the standard API, but narrow the entry in >> > > META-INF/maven/extension.xml to “javax.enterprise.inject.Typed” >> > > >> > > b) Switch to support @org.eclipse.sisu.Typed >> > > >> > > c) Remove this feature completely from Maven >> > >> > From what I'm concerned b and c would solve it but I guess sisu users >> can >> > have the same issue - not sure how likely it is. >> > >> > >> >> Sisu users typically have control over the container classpath and can >> choose whether to include CDI or not (and at which level) >> > There is a d) option: add in @Mojo a list of imported API. ClassRealm >> can >> > support filtering from the parent classloader and therefore I could use: >> > >> > @Mojo(name ="...", pluginPackages={"javax", ...}) >> > >> > This would allow to keep current setup and let mojo to override it. >> > Compared to a) it is defined in plugin.xml and not extension.xml. >> > >> > >> >> At the moment there’s a single Maven API realm, which imports all the >> packages listed in the core extension.xml from the core classloader. >> Plugins then import that realm wholesale, so they automatically get all >> exported packages. However, it should be possible to be more selective, >> whether that’s using a whitelisting or blacklisting approach. >> >> That said, it would be much simpler to either remove the export or switch >> to @org.eclipse.inject.Typed (since use of the annotation in Maven is >> currently very limited) >> > > A last alternative is to still support @Typed without providing it. > Concretely it means maven drops cdi (sadly not inject jar) and use asm to > check if @Typed if here. Sounds the less breaking compromise even if not > the most sexy in terms of impl. > > >> > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Cheers, Stuart >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 09:09, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> > > >> > > > 2018-02-06 9:41 GMT+01:00 Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org >> (mailto:tibordig...@apache.org) (mailto: >> > > tibordig...@apache.org (mailto:tibordig...@apache.org))>: >> > > > >> > > > > Personally I would like to see a new Git branch with CDI 2.0 and >> the >> > > > > integration test results on Jenkins. >> > > > > This would give us more confidence. >> > > > > Question: Does the CDI 2.0 have any NEW mandatory descriptive >> methods >> > > > > without default value already introduced in OLD annotations CDI >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > 1.0/1.1? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > It is more a change in the hierarchy. It doesn't break the user API >> since >> > > > cdi is designed to be provided but it is broken if new code uses >> old API. >> > > > >> > > > Side note: if the idea behind this answer is to ensure the default >> > > provided >> > > > API is the last one then it doesn't work cause an API has a few >> logic >> > > >> > > which >> > > > can require to be overriden (like the SPI and defaults handling). >> > > > Maven uses its own API and exposing CDI is a leaking abuse IMHO. >> > > > >> > > > Note that this is an old bug which should be fixed now IMO before >> maven >> > > > considers CDI being exposed as part of the contract. >> > > > >> > > > For reference, older threads: >> > > > >> > > > http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/libs-in-mavens-lib-folder- >> > > td5828015.html >> > > > >> http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/Linkage-error-td5784411.html#a5784470 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > There is no risk removing it, worse case plugins would add the API >> as >> > > > compile instead of provided which should likely already be the case. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com (mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com)> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > For the reproducer here it is https://github.com/ >> > > > > > rmannibucau/test-maven-plugin - pretty trivial you'll see ;). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 2018-02-06 8:05 GMT+01:00 Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org >> (mailto:tibordig...@apache.org) >> > > (mailto:tibordig...@apache.org)>: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Changing the package would not be possible in 3.x. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Why? In particular since it is an old regression already >> reported on >> > > the >> > > > > > list due to guice introduction it shouldn't be delayed for this >> kind >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > of >> > > > > > reason IMHO. >> > > > > > Was less visible until CDI 2 was released cause the API >> difference >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > was >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > not >> > > > > > triggered but now there are new entries it breaks immediately. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Guessing the version 4.0.0. >> > > > > > > WDYT? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Would stay a blocker until 4 is out which is that soon so not >> sure >> > > it is >> > > > > > an option. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Tibor Digana < >> > > tibordig...@apache.org (mailto:tibordig...@apache.org)> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The question is maybe about what is realistic for Maven >> devs. >> > > > > > > > Shading the CPI package (to something like >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > org.apache.maven.cdi.*) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > would >> > > > > > > > be maybe the case instead of removing the original CDI and >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > reinventing >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > wheel. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY < >> > > herve.bout...@free.fr (mailto:herve.bout...@free.fr)> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > and does the MNG issue contain a reproducible test case >> for us >> > > to >> > > > > > > > > investigate >> > > > > > > > > more precisely? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hervé >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Le lundi 5 février 2018, 22:11:56 CET Robert Scholte a >> écrit : >> > > > > > > > > > Is there a MNG[1] issue? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Robert >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 16:29:49 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com (mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com)> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > Up? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Le 19 janv. 2018 13:18, "Romain Manni-Bucau" < >> > > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com (mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com)> >> > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > écrit : >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > cdi-api is still in maven lib and breaks any plugin >> > > using it >> > > > > since >> > > > > > > > > it is >> > > > > > > > > > > > an old version, can it be dropped or at least >> isolated >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > from >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > plugin >> > > > > > > > > > > > classloaders? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > > > > > 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> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > > --------- >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org (mailto:dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> ) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > (mailto:dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org) >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >> dev-h...@maven.apache.org (mailto:dev-h...@maven.apache.org) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > (mailto:dev-h...@maven.apache.org) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > --------- >> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> (mailto:dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > (mailto:dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org) >> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >> dev-h...@maven.apache.org (mailto:dev-h...@maven.apache.org) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > (mailto:dev-h...@maven.apache.org) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >
