I created GERONIMO-6182 and set up a geronimo specs project for the cdi 1.1 spec by copying the 1.0 spec project.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec I'll do my best to apply patches attached to the jira promptly. thanks david jencks On Oct 5, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > 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
