in such a case we have to be careful with releases of the trunk. imo we shouldn't release e.g. new apis before the spec. is final to ensure that cdi 1.0 users can update without problems. e.g. if we implement new apis which aren't final, we might not be able to use that version of owb as dependency for portable extensions (until the spec. is final).
regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2011/10/5 Joseph Bergmark <[email protected]> > +1 for b) as well. > > I assume we might want to start on 1.1 work before the spec is final, > so might not want to wait that long for a branch to do that work. > > Sincerely, > > Joe > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Gerhard Petracek > <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 for b) as soon as cdi 1.1 is final > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > 2011/10/5 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > >> Hi folks! > >> > >> While working on OWB-589 yesterday, I realized that we cannot use our > old > >> 1.0 TCK for new CDI-1.1 features anymore. > >> While OWB always was more like a CDI-1.1 container than 1.0 ('global' > >> interceptors, no BDA), there are still some changes which are notable. > >> > >> *) CDI-1.1 adds a few annotations, so firstly we need to add those to a > new > >> geronimo-specs-jcdi-1.1. Dblevins, Djencks, how do we do this best? > Should I > >> just ship patches? > >> *) The CDI-1.1 TCK is now based on arquillian -> we have to change our > tck > >> integration > >> *) we can finally remove all the BDA handling stuff with the public > static > >> ThreadLocals (at least a few of them). This got removed from the spec > >> > >> > >> From a users perspective CDI-1.1 is pretty much backward compatible. > From > >> the TCK perspective, CDI-1.1 removed some unnecessary restrictions, e.g > in > >> the Serialization check area. > >> > >> How do we continue with our release planing? > >> > >> There are a few possible options: > >> > >> a.) 1.1.2-SNAPSHOT (as all versions since 1.0.0-alpha1) already contains > a > >> few CDI-1.1 parts, so should we just continue? > >> > >> b.) Since Geronimo, TomEE and WebSphere use OWB as CDI-1.0 container, > >> should we now release a 1.1.2 version and create a maintenance branch > for > >> it? This would mean that the 1.1.x branch would not get much love from > us > >> anymore, and we will focus on 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT > >> > >> c.) Should we just branch 1.1.x now (without a release) and move our > trunk > >> to version 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT, then actively maintain both? (That would mean > >> that someone else than I must handle the maintenance branch). > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > > >
