Hi Harald, comments also inline :)
2012/8/7 Harald Wellmann <hwellmann...@gmail.com>: > Comment inline... > > 2012/8/7 Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com>: >> Hi >> >> just a quick upfront hint. I'm planning on releasing 2.1.0 of Pax Web >> shortly so if there is some >> last minute changes to get into give me a hint so I'll postpone it a >> bit longer. >> > > Good to know, I'll stay out of your way and not commit anything to Pax > Web (on any branch) before the 2.1.0 release. > >> I also have CDI (thanks to harald) on my roadmap I hope to fit it into >> the 3.0 branch, again this will reduce the amount of branches to >> maintain. > > Will there be a 3.0 branch, or will the master branch be > 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT after the 2.1.0 release? I'm planning to move on and will set 3.0 on trunk now :) > > I have started making some CDI-related changes on a "cdi" feature > branch in my local repo (not yet in a shape to be pushed), so the > question is whether or not we really need a cdi branch on GitHub, or > could this all go straight into the 3.0 branch (or master, see above), > given that this branch will be experimental anyway? as long as it's still experimental I suggest to keep it in a seperate branch to me that's the biggest benefit of git to keep the trunk always in a shippable state :) > > I've created a dependency from Pax CDI to Pax Web, but Pax Web itself > will not get new dependencies. There is a new API class for other > extenders to customize the servlet context. cool, well if it's only this extender I'd guess placing it to trunk is fine it's just that if it's a bigger re-factoring like I did with Jetty 8 I did this on an extra branch. > > Pax CDI itself is progressing nicely but still highly experimental and > depends on third-party snapshots. Due to missing features and/or bugs > in the latest official releases of Weld and OpenWebBeans I'm currently > working with snapshots of both CDI providers. sounds very promising :) > > Moreover, Jetty support in OpenWebBeans is less complete than in Weld, > so I'm currently focusing on Weld for the Pax Web integration. An > OSGi-friendly Weld 1.2.0 release is in preparation, but for the > moment, I've created Hudson jobs for the required snapshots of Weld > and OpenWebBeans to build Pax CDI on our CI server. > > So we could aim at the following: > > - Pax CDI 0.2.0 with web support > - based on Weld 1.2.0 > - limited web features with OpenWebBeans 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT, in an > optional profile, not part of the release > - based on Pax Web 3.0.0.M1 with the new customization API. > > What do you think? sounds great :) I'm gonna do some reviews on how far the tomcat server did got and will try to get this somehow into a stable version :) Regards, Achim > > Best regards, > Harald > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general -- Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
