[wildfly-dev] Could a wildlfy jira be reviewed, if possible?

[Panagiotis Sotiropoulos]

Hello,

How about removing the "ear exclusion" line (https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/1317/files#diff-9ed4135f0f37784ca6a099e1f035ceddR72) and keeping the rule of not adding the Service Activator files in the parent modules of the ones where the Service Activator classes are included? That means closing https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1234 and keeping https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1235.

Regards,
Panagiotis

----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lloyd" <david.lloyd at redhat.com>
To: "Stuart Douglas" <sdouglas at redhat.com>, "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry at redhat.com>
Cc: "Jason T. Greene" <jason.greene at redhat.com>, "Panagiotis Sotiropoulos" <psotirop at redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:15:32 PM
Subject: Re: Could a wildlfy jira be reviewed, if possible?

True but this is not ideal because instantiating the activator might 
have side-effects.  I think looking in VFS is the right way to do this.

On 06/13/2016 07:11 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> I guess there is a slightly more hacky way to approach this where you
> just ensure that the resulting ServiceActivator's ClassLoader is the
> same as the module class loader, although this will result in
> ServiceActivators being instantiated multiple times but then not
> actually used.
>
> Stuart
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Firstly the PR itself is crap, just checking if the deployment name
>> ends with ".ear" is not the correct way to do things, and it does not
>> even fix the underlying problem (which is caused by ServiceActivator
>> files being visible from multiple deployments).
>>
>> I think your interpretation of what the semantics should be is
>> correct. I think the only real way to implement this however is to
>> change from using Module.loadServices() to using VFS based discovery
>> to get more control over the loading process.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Brian Stansberry
>> <brian.stansberry at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi David, Jason, Stuart:
>>>
>>> We need to decide how to deal with these PRs. AIUI that means deciding what
>>> are the supported semantics and then what changes are needed to meet those.
>>>
>>> IMO it seems like the semantics should be simple. For each
>>> META-INF/services/org.jboss.msc.service.ServiceActivator file in the overall
>>> deployment, the service gets activated once and only once. If there are 2
>>> such files that install the same service, we execute both, there's a
>>> DuplicateServiceException, and the user fixes their deployment.
>>>
>>> On 6/13/16 8:41 AM, Panagiotis Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Mr Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Could you please review https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1235,
>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-1234 (they have the same PR). It is
>>>> related to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286272 (which is
>>>> related to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292044 (VERIFIED)).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Panagiotis Sotiropoulos
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brian Stansberry
>>> Senior Principal Software Engineer
>>> JBoss by Red Hat

-- 
- DML