Re: Release?

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

up? Any news on this pending change?

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 dim. 31 oct. 2021 à 08:05, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Hi JL,
>
> AFAIK there was a small code change to do - until I missed it - so we are
> waiting for it I guess.
>
> 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 sam. 30 oct. 2021 à 13:03, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> is there any update on this?
>> How far as we from the release?
>>
>> If it's too long, can we consider doing a release now and a release after
>> the patch is complete?
>>
>> Le lun. 11 oct. 2021 à 10:26, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a
>> écrit :
>>
>> > I think we should wait for Arne's fix then sounds like we would be in
>> good
>> > shape.
>> >
>> > 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 ven. 8 oct. 2021 à 15:33, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> a
>> > écrit :
>> >
>> > > All good now.
>> > > I think we can release now
>> > >
>> > > Le jeu. 7 oct. 2021 à 10:42, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>> a
>> > > écrit :
>> > >
>> > > > All pushed and testing on TomEE now with the TCK
>> > > >
>> > > > Looking at the MyFaces issue
>> > > >
>> > > > Le mer. 6 oct. 2021 à 14:47, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > a
>> > > > écrit :
>> > > >
>> > > >> +1 to get a *new* SPI for the allocation (ok if we test if
>> > > definingService
>> > > >> is an instanceof it and reuse the same instance but should stay
>> split)
>> > > >> +1 to port the logic of tomee to OWB around unsafe with new method
>> > > handles
>> > > >> if it does not trigger any warning by default (was the reason to
>> > bypass
>> > > >> Unsafe constructor when defining service is set).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 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 mer. 6 oct. 2021 à 14:25, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <
>> jeanouii@gmail.com>
>> > a
>> > > >> écrit :
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > For the sake of clarity here is our problem.
>> > > >> > We want to support JDK 17 in TomEE.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > For our proxy creation, we were used to using Unsafe (like OWB
>> and a
>> > > lot
>> > > >> > more).
>> > > >> > We changed that to use a method handles lookup, but still from
>> JDK
>> > 17+
>> > > >> it
>> > > >> > does not work either.
>> > > >> > We have a similar service ClassDefiner in TomEE where we do the
>> > switch
>> > > >> > automatically to ClassLoader.defineClass when it's available to
>> > create
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > proxy from the byte array.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > OWB does that using explicit configuration but overall it is the
>> > same.
>> > > >> > Where it becomes different is after ...
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > As soon as you have created the Class with the byte array, you
>> > somehow
>> > > >> need
>> > > >> > to instantiate it.
>> > > >> > In TomEE, we still by default use Unsafe.allocateInstance because
>> > > there
>> > > >> is
>> > > >> > no replacement for now and it is still working under JDK17.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > For OWB, if you switch to using ClassLoader.defineClass for JDK
>> 17,
>> > > then
>> > > >> > the default constructor is used and Unsafe is totally bypassed.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I'm not questioning the choice made, but the fact we need to be
>> able
>> > > to
>> > > >> > override that behavior in TomEE at least.
>> > > >> > We can't always use the default constructor. Using
>> > > >> Unsafe.allocateInstance
>> > > >> > won't call the default constructor.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > If we can override OWB default behavior, then CDI beans managed
>> by
>> > OWB
>> > > >> and
>> > > >> > beans managed by TomEE will work the same way and users can
>> switch
>> > > from
>> > > >> one
>> > > >> > to the other without side effects.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > So functionally it's the same with my change.
>> > > >> > I'm almost sure no one is creating it's own DefiningClassService
>> > > >> > implementation but the user facing interface argument is
>> acceptable.
>> > > >> I'd go
>> > > >> > with a default method in the interface or create an
>> > > >> > InstanciatingClassService even though it's overkill in my
>> opinion.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The comments in the tests should have been removed. I first
>> wanted
>> > to
>> > > >> add a
>> > > >> > test to reproduce the issue we had in TomEE, but actually
>> > > >> > InterceptionOfBeanWithConstructorInjectionTest already shows that
>> > > using
>> > > >> > default constructor instead of Unsafe.allocateInstance breaks OWB
>> > > >> itself.
>> > > >> > It also breaks a couple of other things in TomEE like the
>> security
>> > > >> > extension.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Le mer. 6 oct. 2021 à 11:17, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>> > > >> a
>> > > >> > écrit :
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > Hi JL,
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > It looks weird because we already had a fallback to use the
>> > > >> constructor -
>> > > >> > > and BTW i'm not sure the commented part of the test should be.
>> > > >> > > So this shouldn't help TomEE.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Do you have a test where this change helps?
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > side note: we likely don't want to break the SPI since it is an
>> > user
>> > > >> > facing
>> > > >> > > part.
>> > > >> > > I saw you mentionned a default method but we should probably
>> check
>> > > we
>> > > >> > need
>> > > >> > > it at all before (not sure how tomee is different there on
>> java 17
>> > > >> since
>> > > >> > > the extension points were already set up IIRC).
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Happy to discuss on slack if it is easier - know mails can be
>> > > >> complicated
>> > > >> > > for such things ;).
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > 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 mer. 6 oct. 2021 à 10:14, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <
>> > > jeanouii@gmail.com>
>> > > >> a
>> > > >> > > écrit :
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > Thanks Thomas
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1392
>> > > >> > > > And I pushed
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/commit/2af6184ee5ec6b474f037b3c5768c82bba136722
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > I'd appreciate feedback, review and comments. Should have
>> > created
>> > > a
>> > > >> PR
>> > > >> > > > sorry.
>> > > >> > > > Functionally, it's the same as previously, but it allows
>> TomEE
>> > to
>> > > >> > > override
>> > > >> > > > the instanciation part to be consistent.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > Le mar. 5 oct. 2021 à 23:11, Thomas Andraschko <
>> > > >> > > > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com>
>> > > >> > > > a écrit :
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > > AFAIK we didnt start the process yet, so we can wait for
>> your
>> > > fix
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > Am Di., 5. Okt. 2021 um 22:27 Uhr schrieb Jean-Louis
>> MONTEIRO
>> > <
>> > > >> > > > > jeanouii@gmail.com>:
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > I have an issue with OWB in TomEE under JDK 17
>> > > >> > > > > > I think I can workaround it, but I'd need a small change
>> in
>> > > OWB.
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > Can we reroll it after my fix?
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > Le lun. 4 oct. 2021 à 09:29, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> > > >> jb@nanthrax.net
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > a
>> > > >> > > > > > écrit :
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > +1
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Regards
>> > > >> > > > > > > JB
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > On 03/10/2021 20:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi all,
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > We fixed a few issues:
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > PTKeySummaryAssigneeStatus
>> > > >> > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Bug] OWB-1298
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1298>
>> > > >> > > > > WebsocketUserManager
>> > > >> > > > > > > > ambigious resolution Jakarta Faces
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1298>
>> > > Unassigned
>> > > >> > > > RESOLVED
>> > > >> > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Bug] OWB-1387
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1387>
>> > > >> > > > > > > > @Destroyed(ApplicationScoped.class)
>> > > >> > > > > > > > not thrown when @Destroyed(RequestScoped.class)
>> exists
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1387>
>> Arne
>> > > >> Limburg
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <
>> > > >> > >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=arne>
>> > > >> > > > > > > CLOSED
>> > > >> > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Improvement] OWB-1389
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1389>
>> Remove
>> > > >> > > destroyed
>> > > >> > > > > > > instance
>> > > >> > > > > > > > from memory <
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1389
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > Mark
>> > > >> > > > > > > Struberg
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=struberg
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > RESOLVED
>> > > >> > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Task] OWB-1390
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1390>
>> > support
>> > > >> > > > > > > > javax.enterprise.inject.scan.implicit property
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1390>
>> Romain
>> > > >> > > > Manni-Bucau
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=romain.manni-bucau
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > RESOLVED
>> > > >> > > > > > > > [image: Major] [image: Task] OWB-1391
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1391>
>> > > >> > > > > > > AbstractMetaDataDiscovery
>> > > >> > > > > > > > ignores classpath entries starting with a common path
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1391>
>> Romain
>> > > >> > > > Manni-Bucau
>> > > >> > > > > > > > <
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=romain.manni-bucau
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > RESOLVED
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > I know Thomas can await a few of them so wonder if we
>> > > should
>> > > >> > > > trigger
>> > > >> > > > > a
>> > > >> > > > > > > > release next week (starting on the 4th) or in the
>> > > following
>> > > >> > days.
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > I'd just like to highlight the 1391 changes the way
>> we
>> > > >> ignore
>> > > >> > > > > > duplicated
>> > > >> > > > > > > > jars/folders in in the classpath so can be worth some
>> > > >> testing.
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > No issue to delay from some days the release if it
>> > helps.
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > Side note for our beloved tomee siblings: this
>> shouldn't
>> > > >> impact
>> > > >> > > you
>> > > >> > > > > > since
>> > > >> > > > > > > > you don't reuse that scanning/lifecycle logic so
>> should
>> > > be a
>> > > >> > > "noop
>> > > >> > > > > > > release"
>> > > >> > > > > > > > for you.
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > 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
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > --
>> > > >> > > > > > Jean-Louis
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > --
>> > > >> > > > Jean-Louis
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > --
>> > > >> > Jean-Louis
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Jean-Louis
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Jean-Louis
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Louis
>>
>