All the component i reviewed were portable - forgot to mention it so should be., if not you are right.
2017-05-02 17:46 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]>: > Does it really make sense the seperate the "components" in a extra > "environment"? > You know, we need a extra release cycle for the components and not sure if > you can e.g. use a very old jta-component with the newest meecrowave core. > > 2017-05-02 17:39 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > Think we can start to think about 1.0, I'd like to propose something for > > 1.0: move the components to have their own lifecycle. Concretely it would > > move jolokia, jta, oauth2 integration in meecrowave-component/ subtree of > > OWB svn and let them be released "on demand". > > > > Goal is to not keep a super huge tree where we actually mainly change > > maven/gradle plugins, testing stack and core between each release. > However > > I don't want to completely drop these components which make sense in > > meecrowave ecosystem IMO. I see it as a hot/cold disk solution but for > code > > ;). > > > > Here is an illustration of the proposal: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openwebbeans/ > > meecrowave/ > > trunk > > branches > > tags > > meecrowave-components/ > > trunk > > meecrowave-jta > > meecrowave-jolokia > > meecrowave-... > > branches > > tags > > > > wdyt? > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > >
