[seam-dev] Seam 2.2.0.CR1 release

[Pete Muir]

I've applied your patch - looks good, please test at your end.

On 15 Jun 2009, at 01:46, Stuart Douglas wrote:

>
> I have submitted a patch that should fix the issues in JIRA, but  
> there are still quite a few that have not been reported yet,  
> probably because there are not very many multi-war seam apps in  
> production. Most of these issues can be fixed piecemeal, and the  
> ones that can't are probably obscure enough that people will not run  
> into them (e.g. selecting which app context you want to use when  
> injecting seam components into spring beans).
>
> A few of the cases where the wrong application context can be used:
>
> - async methods may use the wrong app context
> - all users of ContextualHttpRequest may run in the wrong app  
> context (remoting and resteasy are the main ones)
> - Message Driven beans will always run in an arbitary application  
> context (this can't really be fixed, but I don't really like the  
> idea that the context that they run in is undefined, depending on  
> the order that the apps are deployed)
> - Spring integration (not really fixable)
> - There may be some problems with the Jbpm SeamUserCodeInterceptor
>
> If there are no problems with the last patch I will do up a patch  
> for the ContextualHttpRequest and async method issues later this  
> week. The async method patch will probably be a bit messy, because  
> it will involve passing the application context around inside all  
> the dispatchers.
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Allen [mailto:dan.j.allen at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sat 13/06/2009 10:21 AM
> To: Pete Muir
> Cc: Stuart Douglas; seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: [seam-dev] Seam 2.2.0.CR1 release
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Stuart, I agree, this is long overdue.
> >
> > I took a look at your patch, there seems to be a number of problems
> > (System.out.println, changing of SPIs with no changes made to the  
> JBoss5 int
> > project at least), and it is essentially a workaround for a  
> mistake in the
> > underlying architecture, as a result I would prefer to defer this  
> to 299,
> > which does correctly scope all components to the relevant JEE  
> module.
>
>
> Hmm, I was thinking this was going to get into 2.2 as well...or at  
> least
> 2.2.1. I know that solving problems like this one is much easier and  
> cleaner
> w/ 299 given that we have a chance to start over, but I worry that  
> there are
> enough folks that really need this capability w/o refactoring the  
> rest of
> their code. Even with 299 in place, if there is any Seam 2 code,  
> users are
> still going to have the same issue (assuming that this problem is  
> baggage
> that Seam 2 brings with it).
>
> Stuart, would you be willing to work through this piecemeal? That  
> will make
> success much more likely. And this really would be huge for Seam 2  
> if we
> could get it fixed.
>
> -Dan
>
> --
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
>
> NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
> basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
> from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than  
> a week,
> it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
> caught in the spam filters.  Please don't hesitate to resend a  
> message if
> you feel that it did not reach my attention.
>
>