+1 for changing the name and location BEFORE 1.0 Otherwise it will probably not happen...
2014-02-14 15:04 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > +1 for changing the name and location of cdictrl > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-14 13:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > +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. > > > > > >
