well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we shouldn't change it anymore. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén <[email protected]>: > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are different. > > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the force. > > > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. >> >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to match >> our other project names. >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY benefit. >> > >> > >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our real >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even have a >> > dependency to ds-core. >> > >> > >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that all >> the >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? How do >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? >> > >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's really >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. >> > >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, Gerhard Petracek < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > +1 there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes >before< v1. we had a >> > >similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it. >> > >(+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very >> beginning). >> > > >> > >if we change something like that, we should also re-visit the >> > >security-module (the initial reason for creating an own module isn't >> there >> > >any longer). >> > > >> > >regards, >> > >gerhard >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >2014-02-10 13:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> [email protected] >> > >: >> > > >> > >> Can't we change the parent? >> > >> IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >> > >> >> > >> > We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules >> > >> > because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change >> > the >> > >> > artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > >> > strub >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko < >> > >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no >> > deps on >> > >> > >> core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a >> > user's >> > >> > >> point of view). >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just >> > need to >> > >> > >> be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects >> > (e.g. >> > >> > >> we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to >> > upgrade). >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it >> IMHO >> > >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> > >> > [email protected] >> > >> > >> >: >> > >> > >> >> i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on >> > >> > >> deltaspike-core. >> > >> > >> >> (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> regards, >> > >> > >> >> gerhard >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not >> > change >> > >> > it's >> > >> > >> >>> name. >> > >> > >> >>> test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to >> > >> change. >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> LieGrue, >> > >> > >> >>> strub >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén < >> > >> > [email protected]> >> > >> > >> >>> wrote: >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> Hello, >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >I know it's been discussed before but now with a module >> called >> > >> > >> >>> test-control >> > >> > >> >>> >it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though >> > cdiCtrl >> > >> is >> > >> > >> not a >> > >> > >> >>> >module it's not so pretty... >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >Cheers / Karl >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
