I think #1 is really the only way we can realistically continue forward. We should communicate though that those matrices which use earlier versions of the spec(s) probably will not receive as much attention, probably just bug fixes, unless we can refactor to a base for those modules and then add new things in base where appropriate.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd agree to #1. I was actually thinking recently about how to > re-implement core using CDI 1.1 features. I'll send out a separate > email RE that. > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ok, so I'd say 1. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > 2014-06-29 0:46 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > >> no - i contacted esp. one server team months ago and they promised to > fix > >> it. > >> however, the latest release contains fixes for several issues i reported > >> except this one. > >> (and afaik there won't be any new ee6 release any time soon and an ee7 > >> release might take some time as well.) > >> > >> since we might see similar issues with ee8+, we need a nice approach. > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-06-29 0:09 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> +0 for 1 > >>> -1 for 2 (otherwise a single branch will be maintained in practise) > >>> are we able to "fix" them? for 3 > >>> > >>> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-06-29 0:03 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >: > >>> > hi @ all, > >>> > > >>> > as we have seen e.g. as7 logs exceptions during the startup due to > our > >>> > optional classes (needed for jsf 2.2+). > >>> > since we really need at least some of them (otherwise we would break > jsf > >>> > 2.2+ applications), we said that users should ignore those log > entries > >>> > (there is no impact later on). > >>> > however, there are other servers which don't ignore it and the > deployment > >>> > fails. > >>> > > >>> > we have different options here - e.g.: > >>> > #1 special modules once they are needed > >>> > #2 one branch per java ee version > >>> > #3 keep it as it is (and ignore those servers) > >>> > > >>> > regards, > >>> > gerhard > >>> > -- Jason Porter http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
