+1 for 3) the workarounds are really not that big... i would leave it as it is for now and start with DS 2.0 (= CDI2.0 only) the next months.
2018-04-03 22:06 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org>: > hi @ all, > > since we will need to maintain v1.8.x for a while and it's too early for > using cdi 2.0 (for a while), we should discuss if we should have one branch > using cdi 1.2+. > it would allow to get rid of several workarounds (and the corresponding > warnings during the bootstrapping process). > > we had a short discussion in the irc-channel about the following options: > #1) ds v1.x as it is right now; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 1.2+ > > vs > > #2) ds v1.8.x: as it is right now; ds > v1.8.x && < v2.x: jdk8 with cdi > v1.2+; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 2.0+ > > vs > > #3) we don't care about v1.2 as a min. requirement at all > (the workarounds are minimal anyway and users can continue to ignore the > warnings during the bootstrapping process) > > or for sure > #4) [any other nice suggestion] > > -> please send your preferred approach > > regards, > gerhard >
