On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:34 AM Thomas Andraschko < [email protected]> wrote:
> not sure if a cdi2-module is enough > we should also get rid of some of our api's which are in CDI 2.0 now > Yes. I agree. Basically, one sticking target I see continually is BeanManagerProvider. Maybe we keep it around as a utility and for backwards compatibility, but its now available as CDI.current(), to do programmatic look up. In addition, there are features like manual injection of fields, which could be replaced by Unmaanaged. I know as a user of CDI 1.2, seeing both available makes me confused, but its because we didn't make a DS version that was CDI 1.1+ compatible. John > > 2016-09-25 17:28 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > 2016-09-25 17:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > Since its inception, DeltaSpike has targeted Java EE 6 and lower, and > as > > a > > > result the CDI 1.0 runtime. We have maintained a pretty backwards > > > compatible code base for 5 years now. > > > > > > CDI 2.0 is going to wrap up in January, if current schedules align > > > correctly. > > > > > > I'd like to propose that we start a branch for 2.0 development now. It > > > would be a good place to put fixes for > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1206 and other > > > enhancements that we can make to our core runtime to better integrate > > with > > > CDI 1.1/1.2/2.0 features that have been added. In addition to the > Java 8 > > > upgrade taking place there. > > > > > > We can keep master on 1.x for patches that may be needed for the 1.x > > line, > > > and rebase them with a 2.0 branch to make sure both branches get the > > fixes. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > What feature do we target and need CDI 2.0 for it? If none I think we > don't > > need the branch yet, if enough we should also think to have a cdi2 module > > to avoid to fork code while 1.0/1.1 is maintained > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > >
