Honestly, I choose the Whiteboard-Issue because it helps me understand the project, so I can fix more serious bugs later on. Furthermore the issue was, in my opinion, blocking a release 6.0.0 and I was confident that I wont break anything since it is a simple addition (turned out not be so simple though :-) )
There actually is no such thing as "the" pax-web developers: the project was initiated by some people, and continued/enhanced by others because they had a need. Those people changed priorities or moved on (maybe because they cannot spent so much spare time or their job just changed so they are busy with other things). I am personally not confident enough in fixing PAXWEB-760 (I've already spent two evenings providing an integration-test which reproduces "your" problem)...and my family is going to kill me if I spent even more time coding through the family-evenings. Getting a timeslot for the whiteboard-issue is already hard enough. Having said that, you might have to consider other options. 1. change your OSGI-Webcontainer. For example IBM Liberty provides a lot functionality similar to pax-web (JSF and JPA out of the box for instance). It comes at a nice price-tag though 2. If your company needs PAXWEB-760 fixed, how about sponsoring a developer to fix it. OPS4J is great because there are no legal restrictions or processes 3. wait for somebody else to fix it I do understand your concerns and I would love to see more people involved again but you cannot force anybody. Personally I think that PAXWEB-760 is somewhat related to PAX-CDI (at least thats how I was able to reproduce the error). If we can get pax-web 6.0.0 out, then Guilaume can finish his work on pax-cdi 1.0.0 which might improve things for your issue. You actually might give pax-cdi 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT (not RC1) a try together with the current snapshot of pax-web.... regards Marc Am Samstag, 24. September 2016 16:17:13 UTC+2 schrieb iJava: > > Hi all, > > I am also user of this list and let me add my two cents. > To tell the truth, I don't understand how the developers of pax-web set > priorities for the issues. > > I did report about the problem https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/PAXWEB-760 > How important is this problem - this problem doesn't let update bundle of > the site > which is in production. This is core functionality as it is used > constantly. In our company > it would be issue number one - there is nothing more important then core > functionality. > > For example - if you develop a text editor and it can't save files you > don't > think about button hover animation. Could anyone explain what principles > are followed when next issues are chosen. Is there some roadmap of the > project? > I already asked about plans but unfortunately didn't get any answers. > > Best regards > -- -- ------------------ OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
