that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used to maintain it.
+1 for a vote 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 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>
