+1, i use meecrowave-core in scope compile so didnt hit that need but I
fully understand it - had the same when was running after real portability.
I wouldnt call it meecrowave-spec-apis but that's a minor point
(meecrowave-api is not perfect too but less weird than specs and api*s* for
me, maybe just a personnal feeling)

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book

2018-03-13 9:51 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>:

> Hi folks!
> I just did hack on a small Meecrowave sample with Sven Ruppert and got
> good feedback.
> One of his input is that the hardest part seems to be pulling together the
> various spec versions.
> So people seem to appreciate if we would provide a 'meecrowave-spec-apis'
> uberjar where we bundle all those together.
> That way people would just need to add the dependency to the APIs (scope
> provided) and the meecrowave impl.
> It seems way too hard for most people to get all the different spec
> dependencies right.
> Wdyt?
> LieGrue,
> strub

Reply via email to