Hi Brian, On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Martin's POV here, but with the additional caveat that API > changes and module changes are the same thing, they break backwards > compatibility and should be treated the same. Micro releases are bugfix > releases. Plain and simple.
What is bad with the module changes or more correctly said module additions ? >From my POV it is just a new jar in the distro. For most of the users there is no change until they decide to deploy in OSGi container or to use Weld. > > Cleaning up the module structure so *anything* can be added should be a > priority. OSGi holds very little difference from the transition from C to > C++ for people who were there for that. It was a PITA to do it, but once it > was done, life got so much better. Anything *can* be added. Just the timing is not that good ATM. > > If 1.6 is going to happen fast, holding off on weld until then is no big > deal. If weld goes in to 1.5, it just looks like "business as usual" and the > risk that OSGi never makes it in continues to grow. If OSGi never makes it > in, big waste of time, would have been easier to start anew today instead of > play "kick the can" with everyone and end up empty handed. I don't want any > regrets, that just leads to frowns. > > Small releases, early and often. > > On Aug 23, 2011, at 3:46 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >> -1 to add Weld now >> >> +1 to add Weld and OSGi in 1.5.(1|2) if they don't need API changes to >> be able to work. If they need API changes then they'll have to wait >> for 1.6. >> I also hope 1.6.0 will need less time than 1.4->1.5. >> >> I'll revert WICKET-3976 soon. >> >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> bleh, this is turning into another prolonged discussion.... >>> >>> why dont we just do this...release 1.5 and call it a day. weld can >>> come in as a 1.5.1 or 1.5.2 addition - it doesnt touch any core code. >>> osgi can wait for 1.6 where it can be implemented properly. >>> >>> i am changing my vote to -1 to include weld and -1 to include osgi. >>> they all came in too late for 1.5 and i think i would rather push it >>> out and worry about these things later. >>> >>> martin, revert the pom change you made for the osgi issue and i will >>> build rc6 tomorrow. i think it has a good chance to become 1.5.0. >>> >>> -igor >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> News flash: >>>> >>>> If you're going to include OSGi, go ahead and add Weld. They are equally >>>> important. Maybe not to you, but to some of us. >>>> >>>> Wicket 1.5 is not release candidate. Features do not get added to release >>>> candidates. Features do not even get added to alpha versions. Read the >>>> Release Lifecycle 101 at >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle. >>>> >>>> If Wicket is not RC, then the features Wicket needs to be a viable release >>>> should be added. OSGi is one of them, regardless of whether it's one of >>>> your personal favorites or not (and your opinions are pretty clear in the >>>> public record). >>>> >>>> I pushed for OSGi in 1.5 knowing full well that the RC moniker was a >>>> charade and that I am just as uneasy of waiting for it as you guys appear >>>> to be uneasy of waiting for Weld integration. >>>> >>>> If 1.5 is released, the next opportunity to add features that would cause >>>> the modules to be restructured is 1.6, not 1.5.1. >>>> >>>> The reality is the RC fantasy should be aborted and the cycle set back to >>>> "development mode" so features like Weld can be added and the *proper* >>>> work done to add OSGi -- both with necessary module restructurings. >>>> >>>> Then when that is done, freeze features and start fixing bugs. That's >>>> called "alpha". Etc etc. >>>> >>>> I'll be clear, I think the Apache process has failed on Wicket and if >>>> preferential treatment is given to Weld without proper OSGi support also >>>> going in, it's going to be an unmitigated disaster that is worthy of a >>>> review by the Apache board. It may be worthy of a review in any event. >>>> >>>> Back to the regularly scheduled programming.... >>>> >>>> On Aug 22, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wicket Weld is a really nice to have for wicket 1.5 and would increase >>>>> the importance of our release pretty considerably. The issue with >>>>> wicket-weld is that it requires java 6, and it is late in the release >>>>> game for 1.5 final. >>>>> >>>>> We have experience with building mixed java releases (see our 1.3 >>>>> history), though the build process was not pretty. >>>>> >>>>> In order to enable wicket-weld we need to do the following IMO: >>>>> - create java5 and java6 modules in trunk, each configured with the >>>>> correct java version >>>>> - commit wicket-weld as a submodule for the java 6 module >>>>> - move wicket-examples to java 6 module >>>>> - move all other wicket modules to the java 5 module >>>>> - fix the wicket parent pom to have a java 5 profile and a java 6 profile >>>>> - fix the build script to run different maven setups utilizing a java >>>>> 5 home directory and a java 6 home directory >>>>> - fix the build script to run java 5 compilation first and then only >>>>> java 6 for packaging (without clean) this will keep the java 5 >>>>> compiled classes and re-package them during the java 6 run >>>>> >>>>> This is some work, and as I said, we are late in the release game. If >>>>> 1.5 final was this week I wouldn't propose to do this, but perhaps do >>>>> it in 1.5.1 or 1.5.2. However, since 1.5-rc6 is still not complete we >>>>> might do this now. I'm open to suggestions on whether to include >>>>> wicket-weld or not. >>>>> >>>>> Martijn >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Martin Grigorov >> jWeekend >> Training, Consulting, Development >> http://jWeekend.com >> > > -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
