Le 2 juil. 2017 13:21, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a écrit :

Here is my take on it:
We should make ALL API changes at least a minor version bump.
Moving from JSON-P 1.0 to 1.1 from mw-0.3.0 to 0.3.1 was imo not the best
idea.
We should do better in the future.

The problem is that every project which uses Meecrowave would also need to
update their internal APIs, otherwise they'll get dirty class compat
issues. So people MUST be aware that an API did change.



Is that true? If it does occur for something not being an addition or being
an ee spec change then we have a big trouble (= shouldnt occur by design so
should be ok to do any time).

We can discuss changing the version to reflect it in another thread but it
is still minor in term of impact for meecrowave users.

One gain of meecrowave is to not be tied to ee constraint and get more
freedom on upgrades so if we need to add back this constraint we get a lot
more maintenance load for pretty much no end user gain IMHO. This is what
id like to avoid.

What are the thing justifying to not upgrade? Can you list the use cases?


This might be mitigated if we would provide a merged meecrowave-api.jar
which contains all the geronimo-spec + tomcat-api jars we use.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 02.07.2017 um 13:14 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>:
>
> I like keeping trunk work and therefore create the maintenance now between
> the 2 options.
>
> Now i dont see why we would need to be stuck on a cdi version. Same as we
> upgraded from jsonp 1 to 1.1 we can upgrade to cdi 2 directly imo since it
> shouldnt break anything.
>
> Goal would be to not impact the users, give them more api and feature and
> keep a single branch for us.
>
> Anything making this reasoning wrong?
>
>
>
>
> Le 2 juil. 2017 13:10, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a
écrit :
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to do a Meecrowave release with owb-1.7.3 and then create a
> maintenance branch for the CDI-1.2 version in the next few days.
> The alternative would be to create the maintenance branch _now_ and push
> for CDI-2.0 in trunk?
>
> I honestly don't care, but we should all have the same understanding and
> clear communication about which way to go.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub

Reply via email to