@matt: +1

regards,
gerhard



2013/9/17 Matt Benson <[email protected]>

> On Sep 17, 2013 12:30 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well for *spec* users it is not important Matt.
> >
> You are correct, but I still say (and I'm not the first) that we need to
> provide a stable API for those users who need to create custom extensions
> to BVal that require deeper integration than the specification can provide.
>
> Matt
>
> > Le 17 sept. 2013 19:27, "Matt Benson" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Albert Lee <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as bval-1.0
> and
> >> > create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with
> this
> >> > code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will become
> the
> >> > on-going development code base.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> The problem with this approach as I see it is that we never thoroughly
> >> ironed out the APIs in trunk.  Once we call it 1.0 we are fairly well
> >> committed to the Apache BVal APIs we have exposed, so it's important to
> >> make those something we are all happy with.  In any case I anticipate we
> >> would have a 1.0.x branch, but for everything 1.x the APIs should be
> >> compatible IMO.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK
> >> > compliant. If not, what else are still missing?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Albert
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >   Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his branch
> [1].
> >> > >  Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0
> implementation.
> >> > >  There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
> >> > > applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am honestly
> not
> >> > > confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently
> sorted
> >> > > from the 1.1-specific changes.  I therefore propose that we allow
> 1.1 to
> >> > > become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of
> 1.1
> >> > > features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something similar
> for
> >> > CDI
> >> > > specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that
> regard).
> >> > >
> >> > > Matt
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Albert Lee.
> >> >
>

Reply via email to