It seems that the inertia of users already relying on cdiCtrl is the stickiest point. Why not complete the move and continue to publish a deprecated version under the existing coordinates and packaging, with the warning that users should be ready to switch by 1.0 or perhaps 1.1? This would be simple to accomplish with Maven.
$0.02 in the interest of peace, Matt On Feb 14, 2014 10:41 AM, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >> > > > >> > > >> >
