People have e.g. geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec.jar as <scope>provided in their pom. So when they use the meecrowave test runner this might clash with the geronimo-jcdi_2.0 classpath.
Thus people MUST upgrade their dependencies as well. LieGrue, strub > Am 02.07.2017 um 13:33 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > 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
