+0 for position -1 for name or maven coordinates 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 13:21 GMT+01:00 <it-media.k...@daimler.com>: > Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming ridicuolus. Change > it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood why this very > lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on whether it has > different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit into the naming > scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of how often it is > used, the name change can be reflected on the website and we are dealing with > developers here. They are most likely capable of changing an artifact's name, > don't you think? > > So for a vote: > > +1 for changing it's name. > +1 for changing it's position. > > My two cents, > > Heiko > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 >> An: deltaspike >> Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test- >> control? >> >> >> So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or not we can >> change a JAR's name pre 1.0? >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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 >> <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> >> 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 >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> 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 >> <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> >>> > 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 >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >>> > >> >>> >> 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 <karl.kil...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > 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 < >> >>> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>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 >> <strub...@yahoo.de>: >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > 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 < >> >>> >> >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> 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 < >> >>> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >>> >> >> > >: >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> 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 >> <strub...@yahoo.de>: >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > 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 < >> >>> >> >> > >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> > +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under >> >>> >> >> > >> > +modules >> >>> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament < >> >>> >> john.d.am...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> -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 >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> 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 < >> >>> >> >> > >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >: >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >> 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 < >> >>> >> strub...@yahoo.de>: >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> 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 < >> >>> >> >> > >> > karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > If you are not the addressee, please inform us immediately that you have > received this e-mail by mistake, and delete it. We thank you for your support. >
