[jira] [Commented] (DELTASPIKE-517) improved weld-support
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-517?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13896320#comment-13896320 ] Jozef Hartinger commented on DELTASPIKE-517: Weld always returns an instance of an enhanced subclass from getTarget(). The difference between Weld 1.x and 2.x is that with Weld 2.x the intercepted method on the subclass contains the annotations copied from the superclass' method. The patch looks good. improved weld-support - Key: DELTASPIKE-517 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-517 Project: DeltaSpike Issue Type: Improvement Components: JPA-Module, Security-Module Affects Versions: 0.5 Reporter: Gerhard Petracek Assignee: Gerhard Petracek Fix For: 0.6 Attachments: DELTASPIKE-517.patch with some versions of weld (e.g. 1.1.16) InvocationContext#getTarget returns the subclass-proxy. due to the proxy-class, we can't extract the correct annotations. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1.5#6160)
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
+1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules 2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com: -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no deps on core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a user's point of view). Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just need to be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects (e.g. we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to upgrade). On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com : i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on deltaspike-core. (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) regards, gerhard 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de: Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not change it's name. test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to change. LieGrue, strub On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén karl.kil...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called test-control it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though cdiCtrl is not a module it's not so pretty... Cheers / Karl
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change the artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. LieGrue, strub On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko andraschko.tho...@gmail.com wrote: +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules 2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com: -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no deps on core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a user's point of view). Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just need to be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects (e.g. we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to upgrade). On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com : i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on deltaspike-core. (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) regards, gerhard 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de: Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not change it's name. test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to change. LieGrue, strub On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén karl.kil...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called test-control it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though cdiCtrl is not a module it's not so pretty... Cheers / Karl
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
Can't we change the parent? IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0. 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de: We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change the artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. LieGrue, strub On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko andraschko.tho...@gmail.com wrote: +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules 2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com: -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no deps on core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a user's point of view). Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just need to be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects (e.g. we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to upgrade). On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com : i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on deltaspike-core. (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) regards, gerhard 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de: Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not change it's name. test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to change. LieGrue, strub On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén karl.kil...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called test-control it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though cdiCtrl is not a module it's not so pretty... Cheers / Karl
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
+1 there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes before v1. we had a similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it. (+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very beginning). if we change something like that, we should also re-visit the security-module (the initial reason for creating an own module isn't there any longer). regards, gerhard 2014-02-10 13:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko andraschko.tho...@gmail.com: Can't we change the parent? IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0. 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de: We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change the artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. LieGrue, strub On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko andraschko.tho...@gmail.com wrote: +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules 2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com: -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no deps on core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a user's point of view). Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just need to be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects (e.g. we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to upgrade). On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com : i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on deltaspike-core. (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) regards, gerhard 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de: Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not change it's name. test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to change. LieGrue, strub On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén karl.kil...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called test-control it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though cdiCtrl is not a module it's not so pretty... Cheers / Karl
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
exactly. We're still pre 1.0. Now's the time to do it. It won't affect existing projects since the versions they're on are still out there. Only if they want to upgrade. I think changing the parent structure is the right thing to do. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote: +1 there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes before v1. we had a similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it. (+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very beginning). if we change something like that, we should also re-visit the security-module (the initial reason for creating an own module isn't there any longer). regards, gerhard 2014-02-10 13:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko andraschko.tho...@gmail.com: Can't we change the parent? IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0. 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de: We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change the artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. LieGrue, strub On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko andraschko.tho...@gmail.com wrote: +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules 2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com: -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no deps on core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a user's point of view). Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just need to be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects (e.g. we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to upgrade). On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com : i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on deltaspike-core. (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) regards, gerhard 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de: Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not change it's name. test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to change. LieGrue, strub On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén karl.kil...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called test-control it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though cdiCtrl is not a module it's not so pretty... Cheers / Karl
V 1.0 getting close... Logotype?
Hello! By following the discussions you seem to draw closer and closer to 1.0. I think it would be appropriate to end the project name (or was that settled?) and logotype discussions before. I myself is -1 for name change and +1 for the logotype that's currently in the header Cheers!
Re: V 1.0 getting close... Logotype?
+1 John +1 for using the logo in the header 2014-02-10 14:59 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com: Project name was already established as a part of graduation. Unless we see a need to have a rename, we should stick with it (a good example of why a rename is needed is OpenEJB - TomEE). On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Karl Kildén karl.kil...@gmail.com wrote: Hello! By following the discussions you seem to draw closer and closer to 1.0. I think it would be appropriate to end the project name (or was that settled?) and logotype discussions before. I myself is -1 for name change and +1 for the logotype that's currently in the header Cheers!
Re: V 1.0 getting close... Logotype?
@logo: i hope we will see some nice suggestions soon (see [1]). regards, gerhard [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DESIGN-520 2014-02-10 15:03 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko andraschko.tho...@gmail.com: +1 John +1 for using the logo in the header 2014-02-10 14:59 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com: Project name was already established as a part of graduation. Unless we see a need to have a rename, we should stick with it (a good example of why a rename is needed is OpenEJB - TomEE). On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Karl Kildén karl.kil...@gmail.com wrote: Hello! By following the discussions you seem to draw closer and closer to 1.0. I think it would be appropriate to end the project name (or was that settled?) and logotype discussions before. I myself is -1 for name change and +1 for the logotype that's currently in the header Cheers!
