While the api stay in v1.0 and the code starts to be stable thats ok for me Le 12 avr. 2013 00:22, "Arne Limburg" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> No problem with that, > > But I think we don't need to switch to another branch (owb-2.0) to > implement cdi 1.1 features. > The current code base needs just one line of code to change (and some > additional implemented methods) to implement the cdi 1.1 API > So imho we can start implementing cdi 1.1 features on the owb-1.2 stream > while still staying at the cdi 1.0 API. > > Does anyone has objections against implementing cdi 1.1 features in the > own-1.2 stream (actually this was already done at some points) WITHOUT > referencing the 1.1 API, i.e. implement > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-58 ? > > Cheers, > Arne > > Am 11.04.13 20:23 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter <[email protected]>: > > >I'd say we keep 1.2 as CDI-1.0 and implement CDI-1.1 in 2.0. > > > >Reason is that this will allow TomEE-1.6.x to switch to owb-1.2.x and > >take a bit more time to implement cdi-1.1 without having to stay on > >owb-1.1.x > >This will be much easier to maintain and develop cdi-1.1 that way imo. > > > >LieGrue, > >strub > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:12 PM > >> Subject: Go ahead with CDI 1.1 > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I would like to go ahead and implement CDI 1.1 on the OWB 1.2 stream. > >> I wonder, if some of the java ee container implementors want to use the > >>1.2 > >> stream in a pre java ee 7 release. > >> If so, I would like to find a way to do this. Maybe this would be > >>possible with > >> a maven profile and some maven hacking (has someone used the > >> maven-replacer-plugin?). > >> If no one is interested in a CDI 1.0 OWB 1.2 stream, we directly can go > >>ahead > >> and implement CDI 1.1 > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Arne > >> > >
