we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our official statement. if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. until v2).
a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with deltaspike. -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are still in the pre v1 mode/phase. regards, gerhard 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and > core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 or > we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have the > choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a 1.0 so > already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. Only new > modules don't have them. > 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 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on deltaspike-core, > it's > > a module > > > > @romain: > > > > again: > >> 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). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > >> 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 > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
