As documentation and quality of examples is critical to promote DeltaSpike project, I will take care of that during next weeks as I will be more available on the project. But first I would like to finalize some issues with Apache Camel CDI Extension running on Karaf (Weld, Webbeans).
As Weld 2.1.0.Final is out, we could also move to that version. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > Thomas, you are really welcome to help us with pushing those features. > Others as well. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 23:51 > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? > > > > @Romain: > > I understand all your concerns - really! > > But from the view of CODI users, the current situation is quite > > disappointing because the most required CODI features are still not > > available since over a year > > > > IMO 1.0 should contain all important features. > > I would be happy if we could import Gerhards port of the CODI features > for > > a 1.0 and enhance/reimplement the internal stuff later. > > > > Anyway, i think DS is currently already quite stable and a 1.0 is really > > required after this long time. > > But, as gerhard already stated, a better documentation and examples is > > really the minimum! > > > > I would also take the same version for each module. Its also easier to > > maintain for the users. > > > > > > > > > > 2013/11/13 Cody Lerum <cody.le...@gmail.com> > > > >> +1 for a 1.0 when docs are in order. > >> > >> As far as versioning I prefer the same ver for each module. I do > dislike > >> potentially having to release the exact same code multiple times just > under > >> a different version but I don't know what the alternatives would be. If > > you > >> have modules with different version numbers it tends to make the users > pom > >> very brittle. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > FWIW, I definitely prefer we do 1, and indicate clearly in docs and > on > > a > >> > table on the website what the maturity of each module is. > >> > > >> > On 12 Nov 2013, at 14:34, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Pete, Gerhard > >> > > > >> > > The Problem here is that there are only 2 ways to handle the > > situation: > >> > > > >> > > 1.) all modules share the same version but have different > > maturity > >> grades > >> > > > >> > > 2.) each module has it's very own version. A 0.x reflects > > instability, > >> > 1.x reflects maturity. But you know what happened with exactly this > >> > approach in Seam3? The problem is that users do not know which > version > > of > >> > ds-jsf-api works together with which version of ds-core-impl for > > example. > >> > It gets much more complicated with later modules. > >> > > > >> > > Thus I prefer 1.). > >> > > > >> > > LieGrue, > >> > > strub > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> > >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 14:35 > >> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 to Gerhard’s point (I am looking to try to find someone to > > help > >> with > >> > docs, but the person I had in mind just left Red Hat :-(. Also +1 to > >> going > >> > to 1.0 soon (i.e. making docs and stability a priority!). > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11 Nov 2013, at 23:09, Gerhard Petracek < > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> if we move to v1 soon, we need an useful versioning > > strategy, better > >> > docs > >> > >>> and examples + the api and spi need to be stable for some > > time (in > >> the > >> > best > >> > >>> case until v2+). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> regards, > >> > >>> gerhard > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 2013/11/11 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> how should that work? > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Please note that we will have some not perfectly > > finished modules > >> very > >> > >>>> often. Basically whenever we add a new module... > >> > >>>> There is just no way to avoid this other than making > > those modules > >> own > >> > >>>> releases. But this does not work out neither (as seen > > on a few other > >> > >>>> projects I don't like to name). > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> LieGrue, > >> > >>>> strub > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >> > >>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> > >>>>> To: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>; > > dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> > >>>>> Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 20:54 > >> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 > > or 1.0? > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> Well if code is released it should be stable or > > explicitely in > >> > >>>> alpha/beta..maybe we should do subreleases for > > unstables modules > >> > >>>>> Le 11 nov. 2013 18:43, "Mark Struberg" > > <strub...@yahoo.de> a > >> écrit : > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> Oki folks, txs 4 the feedback, all! > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> I'd say we should create the > > module-maturity-matrix.md first and > >> > then > >> > >>>> we might do the version bump. > >> > >>>>>> Maybe something like green/blue/orange/red > > for mature / ready but > >> > still > >> > >>>> needs a few features / ready but might change > > it's api still / work > >> in > >> > >>>> progress > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> LieGrue, > >> > >>>>>> strub > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>>>>>> From: Charles Moulliard > > <ch0...@gmail.com> > >> > >>>>>>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> > >>>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg > > <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> > >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:25 > >> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release > > version? 0.6 or 1.0? > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> +1 to move to 1.0. We have done the same > > thing with Apache Aries > >> > moving > >> > >>>>>>> Blueprint from 0.5 to 1.0 release > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John D. > > Ament > >> > >>>>>>> <john.d.am...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> Yep, agreed. Users care about the > > version #. I would recommend > >> > >>>> that if we > >> > >>>>>>>> could release a 1.0 based on the > > current code base + some > >> > additional > >> > >>>> bug > >> > >>>>>>>> fixes we'll get huge wins. > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> +1 to switching current to > > 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT. > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, > > Mark Struberg < > >> > strub...@yahoo.de> > >> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Hi! > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> In the last 2 months I did a few > > conference talks and smaller > >> > >>>>>>>>> presentations (OpenBlend, W-JAX, > > ..) and always got the same > >> > >>>>>>> questions: > >> > >>>>>>>>> "it's only a 0.x > > version, so is it already stable? I > >> > >>>>>>> don't like to use it > >> > >>>>>>>>> in production with 0.x" > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> And the actual answer is: > > "well, core, cdictrl, etc are stable > >> > >>>>>>> since a > >> > >>>>>>>>> long time, other modules are not > > yet 100% where we like them". > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> The other fact is that we will > > never get all our modules 100% > >> > >>>> stable. > >> > >>>>>>>>> Because new modules cannot be > > released with the same quality > >> than > >> > >>>>>>>>> established and well known and > > bugfixed modules. > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Thus I think we should rather > > introduce a kind of > >> majurity-matrix > >> > >>>> for > >> > >>>>>>>>> DeltaSpike. > >> > >>>>>>>>> A simple list of modules and > > their majurity grade. > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> By officially moving to 1.0 we > > would gain much more users. > >> > >>>>>>>>> I personally do not care about > > numbers, but LOTS of users do! > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Wdyt? > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> LieGrue, > >> > >>>>>>>>> strub > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> -- > >> > >>>>>>> Charles Moulliard > >> > >>>>>>> Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat > >> > >>>>>>> Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog : > > http://cmoulliard.github.io > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > -- Charles Moulliard Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog : http://cmoulliard.github.io
