I guess I'm kind of curious why this is such a polarized issue.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 <[email protected]>: > >> +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. >> > > >> > >>
