No, this ones is not available with previous owb. Was the same with
interceptor bindings.

However i still think 1.1.4 should be used since it fixes issues relative
to cdi 1.0 itself.

- Romain

Le 4 janv. 2012 18:19, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a écrit :

>
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> > -> the 0.3 release of bval means changing the bval tck setup
> > -> the bug of owb 1.1.3 is not tested in TCKs (as a lot of others):
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1224895
>
> Cool.  Can you file a JIRA for that one.
>
> This is basically the "can't add interceptors via an extension" bug right?
>
>
> -David
>
> >
> > 2012/1/4 David Blevins <[email protected]>
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >>
> >>> if you have the openjpa-maven-plugin-2.2.0-SNAPSHOT, then you most
> >> definitely also have openjpa itself in 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT.
> >>>
> >>> I'm using an internally released version of it in 2 projects, and
> >> OpenJPA-2.2.0-SNAPSHOT is really stable.
> >>>
> >>> So we could also push for shipping an OpenJPA release. I can take over
> >> driving this part (I'm OpenJPA committer).
> >>> I found quite a few (personal) show stoppers in openjpa-2.1.x which we
> >> fixed in 2.2.x
> >>
> >> Any gut feeling on how long releases take in OpenJPA-land?
> >>
> >>> If you still like to use openjpa-2.1.x, then just use the
> >> org.codehaus.mojo version of the plugin instead [1]. They are basically
> the
> >> same source, I just moved the plugin over to openjpa to make it easier
> to
> >> maintain and test with OpenJPA itself.
> >>
> >> Probably the TCK will be the biggest indicator if we can switch, then
> >> 2.2.x release time.
> >>
> >> Not sure where our SNAPSHOT discussions will end up, but I can see us
> >> potentially releasing now with prior versions of the SNAPSHOTs then
> >> beginning another release  in 2-3 weeks as the newer versions come
> along.
> >>
> >> Seems like there's some merit in releasing now and giving people just a
> >> bit more time to get their releases out the door.
> >>
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: David Blevins <[email protected]>
> >>>> To: [email protected]
> >>>> Cc:
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 7:56 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: Release time?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can we use timestamped snapshot as a workaround (for snapshot deps,
> I
> >>>> mean)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We could maybe release the code ourselves like Geronimo does from
> time
> >> to
> >>>> time.  Just copy it in, update the groupIds and release it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking at our snapshots we have:
> >>>>
> >>>> - javaee-api  6.0-3-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - cxf  2.5.1-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - owb  1.1.4-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - bval  0.4-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - karaf-maven-plugin 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - openejb-openwebbeans-jsf  1.1.2-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - org.apache.karaf.tooling.exam.container  3.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - openjpa-maven-plugin  2.2.0-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - openejb-jstl 1.3-SNAPSHOT
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of these will be easy to deal with, but these seem a bit
> trickier:
> >>>>
> >>>> - karaf-maven-plugin 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - org.apache.karaf.tooling.exam.container  3.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> - openjpa-maven-plugin  2.2.0-SNAPSHOT
> >>>>
> >>>> From a compliance perpective it looks like we're good with the
> following
> >>>> previous versions:
> >>>>
> >>>> - cxf  2.5.0
> >>>> - owb  1.1.3
> >>>> - bval  0.3-incubating (our patched version)
> >>>>
> >>>> We could easily release again in two weeks or so when these things are
> >> all
> >>>> released.  We keep saying we want to release more frequently but we
> >> haven't
> >>>> yet done it.  Releasing again when these binaries are out might be a
> >> good way to
> >>>> get into that habit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Holding our release isn't that appealing and neither is using
> >>>> non-reproducable timestamped versions.  Neither are really good
> habits.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to