+1 for changing the name and location of cdictrl regards, gerhard
2014-02-14 13:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > +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 <[email protected]>: > > 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:[email protected]] > >> 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 > >> <[email protected]> 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 > >> <[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 > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> > > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> > > > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > > > > 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. > > >
