On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:15 PM, James Carman <[email protected]> wrote: > I can be available. Do you guys want to talk via the IRC channel or > ICQ? I don't even have an ICQ account anymore, I don't think. What > about Skype? One thing's for sure, we need to bring our discussion > results back to this list. Doing things behind the scenes and
+1 IRC is OK, since that is somehow archived. ICQ/Skye is a no-go -M > off-list is not the ASF way. I'm sure there's no problem with having > off-list discussions, but we just have to make sure we keep folks in > the loop. > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Gurkan, James I don't know if you can find some spare time this evening. I >> will be off now but back @ 19:00 CEST in ICQ. >> >> Would be cool if we could discuss a possibly new structure and a few M2 >> questions quickly. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> --- Mark Struberg <[email protected]> schrieb am Sa, 18.4.2009: >> >>> Von: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >>> Betreff: Re: AW: OWB modularisation >>> An: [email protected] >>> Datum: Samstag, 18. April 2009, 10:37 >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> The JSF separation is only the beginning. >>> >>> The plugin will be extended to allow plugable resource >>> injection, field injection, etc >>> >>> The OWB core should only contain SE stuff with no further >>> dependencies, so JPA, EJB etc should go into plugins. >>> >>> Finally I'd like to think about a new structure of our >>> modules, something like this: >>> >>> . >>> |-- distribution >>> |-- webbeans-api >>> |-- webbeans-impl (core with only SE functionality) >>> |-- src/site (for the main documentation) >>> |-- samples >>> | |-- guess >>> | '-- chatapp >>> |-- plugins >>> | |-- webbeans-jsf >>> | |-- webbeans-jpa (@PersistenceUnit, etc >>> with simple SPI impl) >>> | '-- webbeans-ejb (basic EJB stuff with >>> SPI definition) >>> |-- integration >>> | |-- webbeans-openejb >>> | |-- webbeans-openjpa >>> | '-- webbeans-hibernate >>> |-- bundles >>> | |-- webbeans-geronimo >>> | |-- webbeans-tomcat >>> | |-- webbeans-swing >>> | '-- webbeans-glassfish >>> '-- webbeans-tck (with webbeans-geronimo as test container >>> for full TCK) >>> >>> I think we should let the default MetaDataDiscoveryService >>> implementation with it's javassist and scannotation >>> dependencies for webbeans-impl to not overcomplicate the >>> tests. If one likes to not use it, he can still exclude >>> those dependencies and use another mechanism instead. >>> >>> I'n not sure about the bundles thingy, because this can >>> also go into e.g. geronimo itself. >>> >>> Feel free to comment pros and cons of this structure. >>> >>> Another question: Gurkan, what plans do you have for M2? >>> I'd like to checkin the PluginLoader asap. Maybe without >>> the directory rework, but it should definitely go into M2, >>> so I'd wait another 2 weeks for things settle down. >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> >>> schrieb am Sa, 18.4.2009: >>> >>> > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> >>> > Betreff: Re: AW: OWB modularisation >>> > An: [email protected] >>> > Datum: Samstag, 18. April 2009, 8:01 >>> > Yup. it is good idea to have separate >>> > project for jsf related codes. >>> > >>> > In the mean time, we have to work on to create >>> > M2 release :) >>> > >>> > Requirements for next steps M3, M4, M5 release >>> > ------------------------------------------- >>> > We have to implement all of the specs with exception >>> > >>> > * XML definition >>> > * Interceptor and Decorator definition >>> > * EJB definition >>> > >>> > Because these topics are uncertain and that they can >>> be >>> > carried to the other specifications. >>> > >>> > M2 Content >>> > ------------------------------------------ >>> > I will send a detailed information about the M2 >>> > release content and dates in a couple of days. Please >>> you >>> > also think about what can be go inside into the M2 >>> release. >>> > >>> > Thanks; >>> > >>> > Gurkan >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >>> > To: [email protected]; >>> > [email protected] >>> > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:40:50 AM >>> > Subject: AW: OWB modularisation >>> > >>> > >>> > I now also fixed a few issues in the guess sample: >>> > >>> > .) workaround for OWB-90 >>> > .) add dependency to openwebbeans-jsf >>> > .) improved logging in the PluginLoader >>> > >>> > LieGrue, >>> > strub >>> > >>> > --- [email protected] >>> > <[email protected]> >>> > schrieb am Fr, 17.4.2009: >>> > >>> > > Von: [email protected] >>> > <[email protected]> >>> > > Betreff: OWB modularisation >>> > > An: [email protected] >>> > > Datum: Freitag, 17. April 2009, 22:56 >>> > > >>> > > Hi folks! >>> > > >>> > > Today ran very well - I finally got enough power >>> to >>> > > introduce a plugin mechanism for OpenWebBeans. >>> > > >>> > > So webbeans-impl doesn't contain any JSF >>> specific >>> > code >>> > > anymore! >>> > > All this has been moved over a special >>> webbeans-jsf >>> > module. >>> > > >>> > > The mechanism uses the java.util.ServiceLoader >>> > > functionality. So adding a now plugin is easy: >>> simply >>> > drop >>> > > the JAR into the classpath ;) >>> > > >>> > > Please take a glimpse at >>> > > >>> > > http://ns1.backwork.net/git/openwebbeans.git >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > If there re no objections on how I implemented >>> it, >>> > then >>> > > I'll check this into SVN tomorrow morning! >>> > > >>> > > LieGrue, >>> > > strub >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
