On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:37 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2016-09-25 17:33 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> we can switch them of on CDI 2 while we still maintain it on CDI 1.0, that
> said not sure we should switch them off, all are not really standard I
> think and impl can still be important (anyway we can work on a list on
> another thread maybe)
>

IMHO, we do a disservice to the community by keeping both CDI 1.0 and 2.0
in the same release branch.  We can't safely compile against both CDI 1.0
and 2.0 in the same profile.


>
>
> >
> > 2016-09-25 17:28 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > 2016-09-25 17:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to