I'm fine with that approach. I was thinking we could provide a shaded jar under the old coordinates and old package, perhaps even with a warning in the log that you should not be using this.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
