I have not a clear view of the workarounds which are made and how 'bad'/hacky they are. But when we don't have major complaints about it (now or in the past) I would not invest too much time in a temporary version for CDI 1.2.
so #3. Rudy On 3 April 2018 at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > All work for me and the apps i work on since a few years. > > Le 3 avr. 2018 22:17, "Thomas Andraschko" <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > +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 > > > > > >
