Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
Well, I do not get the reason at all. If someone could tell me the benefits of this move, then I'd be happy. From my pov it is not only unnecessary but really wrong. a.) changing the maven coordinates should always ONLY be done if there is a strong reason imo. Remember that the old artifact-ids are still on maven.central and will confuse users. We should really avoid GAV changes to not clutter up our project in maven.central. b.) CdiCtrl is really something completely different than ds-core and it's modules. I would also NOT move the test module under /modules but under an own top level directory. Plus the test module is not released yet, so we can rename it, move it, etc I just don't get any of the benefits we would get with renaming and moving CdiCtrl, thus I'm -1. There also have been no argument for it so far. A 'it looks different' does not count imo as it IS something different. If you like to have them look same then rename test-control to testCtrl... c.) while we are at it: originally I did craete a separate deltaspike directory because I thought that the site and documentation will be maintained inside our git repo. But with our CMS and the docs happening outside our source repo we do not need it anymore. Thus should we move all the content from ./deltaspike/ to ./? This is something which really should be considered to be done before 1.0. LieGrue, strub
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
Hmm deprecating is pushing it later imo Le 14 févr. 2014 19:47, "John D. Ament" a écrit : > I'm fine with that approach. I was thinking we could provide a shaded > jar under the old coordinates and old package, perhaps even with a > warning in the log that you should not be using this. > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Matt Benson > wrote: > > It seems that the inertia of users already relying on cdiCtrl is the > > stickiest point. Why not complete the move and continue to publish a > > deprecated version under the existing coordinates and packaging, with the > > warning that users should be ready to switch by 1.0 or perhaps 1.1? This > > would be simple to accomplish with Maven. > > > > $0.02 in the interest of peace, > > Matt > > On Feb 14, 2014 10:41 AM, "John D. Ament" > wrote: > > > >> I guess I'm kind of curious why this is such a polarized issue. > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Andraschko > >> wrote: > >> > +1 for changing the name and location BEFORE 1.0 > >> > > >> > Otherwise it will probably not happen... > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-14 15:04 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > > >> >> +1 for changing the name and location of cdictrl > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-14 13:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >: > >> >> > >> >> > +0 for position > >> >> > -1 for name or maven coordinates > >> >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2014-02-14 13:21 GMT+01:00 : > >> >> > > Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming > ridicuolus. > >> >> > Change it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood > why > >> this > >> >> > very lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on > >> whether > >> >> it > >> >> > has different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit > into > >> the > >> >> > naming scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of > how > >> >> > often it is used, the name change can be reflected on the website > and > >> we > >> >> > are dealing with developers here. They are most likely capable of > >> >> changing > >> >> > an artifact's name, don't you think? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > So for a vote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > +1 for changing it's name. > >> >> > > +1 for changing it's position. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > My two cents, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Heiko > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > >> >> > >> Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] > >> >> > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 > >> >> > >> An: deltaspike > >> >> > >> Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's > inconsistent > >> >> with > >> >> > test- > >> >> > >> control? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether > or > >> not > >> >> > we can > >> >> > >> change a JAR's name pre 1.0? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are > >> consistent > >> >> > >> > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too > >> used > >> >> to > >> >> > >> > maintain it. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > +1 for a vote > >> >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >> >> > >> : > >> >> > >> >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes > >> our > >> >> > >> >> official statement. > >> >> > >> >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions > >> (e.g. > >> >> > >> >> until v2). > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start > with > >> >> > deltaspike. > >> >> > >> >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we > are > >> >> still > >> >> > >> >> -> in the > >> >> > >> >> pre v1 mode/phase. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > >> : > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. > >> CdiCtrl > >> >> and > >> >> > >> >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS > before > >> >> 0.1 > >> >> > >> >>> or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't > think we > >> >> have > >> >> > >> >>> the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are > late > >> for > >> >> a > >> >> > >> >>> 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 c
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
I'm fine with that approach. I was thinking we could provide a shaded jar under the old coordinates and old package, perhaps even with a warning in the log that you should not be using this. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > It seems that the inertia of users already relying on cdiCtrl is the > stickiest point. Why not complete the move and continue to publish a > deprecated version under the existing coordinates and packaging, with the > warning that users should be ready to switch by 1.0 or perhaps 1.1? This > would be simple to accomplish with Maven. > > $0.02 in the interest of peace, > Matt > On Feb 14, 2014 10:41 AM, "John D. Ament" wrote: > >> I guess I'm kind of curious why this is such a polarized issue. >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Andraschko >> wrote: >> > +1 for changing the name and location BEFORE 1.0 >> > >> > Otherwise it will probably not happen... >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-14 15:04 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >: >> > >> >> +1 for changing the name and location of cdictrl >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 13:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> >> >> >> > +0 for position >> >> > -1 for name or maven coordinates >> >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014-02-14 13:21 GMT+01:00 : >> >> > > Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming ridicuolus. >> >> > Change it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood why >> this >> >> > very lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on >> whether >> >> it >> >> > has different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit into >> the >> >> > naming scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of how >> >> > often it is used, the name change can be reflected on the website and >> we >> >> > are dealing with developers here. They are most likely capable of >> >> changing >> >> > an artifact's name, don't you think? >> >> > > >> >> > > So for a vote: >> >> > > >> >> > > +1 for changing it's name. >> >> > > +1 for changing it's position. >> >> > > >> >> > > My two cents, >> >> > > >> >> > > Heiko >> >> > > >> >> > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >> >> > >> Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] >> >> > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 >> >> > >> An: deltaspike >> >> > >> Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent >> >> with >> >> > test- >> >> > >> control? >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or >> not >> >> > we can >> >> > >> change a JAR's name pre 1.0? >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> > >> > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are >> consistent >> >> > >> > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too >> used >> >> to >> >> > >> > maintain it. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > +1 for a vote >> >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >> >> > >> : >> >> > >> >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes >> our >> >> > >> >> official statement. >> >> > >> >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions >> (e.g. >> >> > >> >> until v2). >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with >> >> > deltaspike. >> >> > >> >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are >> >> still >> >> > >> >> -> in the >> >> > >> >> pre v1 mode/phase. >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> regards, >> >> > >> >> gerhard >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> : >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. >> CdiCtrl >> >> and >> >> > >> >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before >> >> 0.1 >> >> > >> >>> or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we >> >> have >> >> > >> >>> the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late >> for >> >> a >> >> > >> >>> 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints >> already. >> >> > >> >>> Only new modules don't have them. >> >> > >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > >> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > >> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > >> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >> >> > >> :
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
It seems that the inertia of users already relying on cdiCtrl is the stickiest point. Why not complete the move and continue to publish a deprecated version under the existing coordinates and packaging, with the warning that users should be ready to switch by 1.0 or perhaps 1.1? This would be simple to accomplish with Maven. $0.02 in the interest of peace, Matt On Feb 14, 2014 10:41 AM, "John D. Ament" wrote: > I guess I'm kind of curious why this is such a polarized issue. > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Andraschko > wrote: > > +1 for changing the name and location BEFORE 1.0 > > > > Otherwise it will probably not happen... > > > > > > 2014-02-14 15:04 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >: > > > >> +1 for changing the name and location of cdictrl > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-14 13:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > >> > >> > +0 for position > >> > -1 for name or maven coordinates > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-14 13:21 GMT+01:00 : > >> > > Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming ridicuolus. > >> > Change it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood why > this > >> > very lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on > whether > >> it > >> > has different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit into > the > >> > naming scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of how > >> > often it is used, the name change can be reflected on the website and > we > >> > are dealing with developers here. They are most likely capable of > >> changing > >> > an artifact's name, don't you think? > >> > > > >> > > So for a vote: > >> > > > >> > > +1 for changing it's name. > >> > > +1 for changing it's position. > >> > > > >> > > My two cents, > >> > > > >> > > Heiko > >> > > > >> > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > >> > >> Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] > >> > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 > >> > >> An: deltaspike > >> > >> Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent > >> with > >> > test- > >> > >> control? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or > not > >> > we can > >> > >> change a JAR's name pre 1.0? > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are > consistent > >> > >> > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too > used > >> to > >> > >> > maintain it. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > +1 for a vote > >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >> > >> : > >> > >> >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes > our > >> > >> >> official statement. > >> > >> >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions > (e.g. > >> > >> >> until v2). > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with > >> > deltaspike. > >> > >> >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are > >> still > >> > >> >> -> in the > >> > >> >> pre v1 mode/phase. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> regards, > >> > >> >> gerhard > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > >> : > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. > CdiCtrl > >> and > >> > >> >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before > >> 0.1 > >> > >> >>> or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we > >> have > >> > >> >>> the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late > for > >> a > >> > >> >>> 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints > already. > >> > >> >>> Only new modules don't have them. > >> > >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > >> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > >> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > >> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >> > >> : > >> > >> >>> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on > >> > >> >>> > deltaspike-core, > >> > >> >>> it's > >> > >> >>> > a module > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > @romain: > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > again: > >> > >> >>> >> there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes >before< v1. > we > >> had > >> > >> >>> >> a > >> > >> >>> > similar change in codi (before v1) and there was
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
I guess I'm kind of curious why this is such a polarized issue. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Andraschko wrote: > +1 for changing the name and location BEFORE 1.0 > > Otherwise it will probably not happen... > > > 2014-02-14 15:04 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > >> +1 for changing the name and location of cdictrl >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 13:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> >> > +0 for position >> > -1 for name or maven coordinates >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-14 13:21 GMT+01:00 : >> > > Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming ridicuolus. >> > Change it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood why this >> > very lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on whether >> it >> > has different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit into the >> > naming scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of how >> > often it is used, the name change can be reflected on the website and we >> > are dealing with developers here. They are most likely capable of >> changing >> > an artifact's name, don't you think? >> > > >> > > So for a vote: >> > > >> > > +1 for changing it's name. >> > > +1 for changing it's position. >> > > >> > > My two cents, >> > > >> > > Heiko >> > > >> > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >> > >> Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] >> > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 >> > >> An: deltaspike >> > >> Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent >> with >> > test- >> > >> control? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or not >> > we can >> > >> change a JAR's name pre 1.0? >> > >> >> > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent >> > >> > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used >> to >> > >> > maintain it. >> > >> > >> > >> > +1 for a vote >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >> > >> : >> > >> >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our >> > >> >> official statement. >> > >> >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. >> > >> >> until v2). >> > >> >> >> > >> >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with >> > deltaspike. >> > >> >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are >> still >> > >> >> -> in the >> > >> >> pre v1 mode/phase. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> regards, >> > >> >> gerhard >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> : >> > >> >> >> > >> >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl >> and >> > >> >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before >> 0.1 >> > >> >>> or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we >> have >> > >> >>> the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for >> a >> > >> >>> 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. >> > >> >>> Only new modules don't have them. >> > >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > >> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > >> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > >> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >> > >> : >> > >> >>> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on >> > >> >>> > deltaspike-core, >> > >> >>> it's >> > >> >>> > a module >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > @romain: >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > again: >> > >> >>> >> 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). >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > regards, >> > >> >>> > gerhard >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> : >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks >> inconsistent >> > >> >>> >> but I dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark >> > >> >>> >> names are already used 'in fact it is true for this and for >> core) >> > >> >>> >> so we shouldn't change it anymore. >> > >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > >> >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibuc
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
+1 for changing the name and location BEFORE 1.0 Otherwise it will probably not happen... 2014-02-14 15:04 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > +1 for changing the name and location of cdictrl > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-14 13:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > +0 for position > > -1 for name or maven coordinates > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > > > 2014-02-14 13:21 GMT+01:00 : > > > Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming ridicuolus. > > Change it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood why this > > very lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on whether > it > > has different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit into the > > naming scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of how > > often it is used, the name change can be reflected on the website and we > > are dealing with developers here. They are most likely capable of > changing > > an artifact's name, don't you think? > > > > > > So for a vote: > > > > > > +1 for changing it's name. > > > +1 for changing it's position. > > > > > > My two cents, > > > > > > Heiko > > > > > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > > >> Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] > > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 > > >> An: deltaspike > > >> Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent > with > > test- > > >> control? > > >> > > >> > > >> So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or not > > we can > > >> change a JAR's name pre 1.0? > > >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> wrote: > > >> > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent > > >> > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used > to > > >> > maintain it. > > >> > > > >> > +1 for a vote > > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > > >> : > > >> >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our > > >> >> official statement. > > >> >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. > > >> >> until v2). > > >> >> > > >> >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with > > deltaspike. > > >> >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are > still > > >> >> -> in the > > >> >> pre v1 mode/phase. > > >> >> > > >> >> regards, > > >> >> gerhard > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> : > > >> >> > > >> >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl > and > > >> >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before > 0.1 > > >> >>> or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we > have > > >> >>> the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for > a > > >> >>> 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. > > >> >>> Only new modules don't have them. > > >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > > >> : > > >> >>> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on > > >> >>> > deltaspike-core, > > >> >>> it's > > >> >>> > a module > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > @romain: > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > again: > > >> >>> >> 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). > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > regards, > > >> >>> > gerhard > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> : > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks > inconsistent > > >> >>> >> but I dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark > > >> >>> >> names are already used 'in fact it is true for this and for > core) > > >> >>> >> so we shouldn't change it anymore. > > >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : > > >> >>> >> > As far as I understand , it would
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
+1 for changing the name and location of cdictrl regards, gerhard 2014-02-14 13:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > +0 for position > -1 for name or maven coordinates > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-14 13:21 GMT+01:00 : > > Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming ridicuolus. > Change it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood why this > very lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on whether it > has different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit into the > naming scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of how > often it is used, the name change can be reflected on the website and we > are dealing with developers here. They are most likely capable of changing > an artifact's name, don't you think? > > > > So for a vote: > > > > +1 for changing it's name. > > +1 for changing it's position. > > > > My two cents, > > > > Heiko > > > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > >> Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 > >> An: deltaspike > >> Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with > test- > >> control? > >> > >> > >> So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or not > we can > >> change a JAR's name pre 1.0? > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> wrote: > >> > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent > >> > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used to > >> > maintain it. > >> > > >> > +1 for a vote > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >> : > >> >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our > >> >> official statement. > >> >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. > >> >> until v2). > >> >> > >> >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with > deltaspike. > >> >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are still > >> >> -> in the > >> >> pre v1 mode/phase. > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> : > >> >> > >> >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and > >> >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 > >> >>> or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have > >> >>> the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a > >> >>> 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. > >> >>> Only new modules don't have them. > >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >> : > >> >>> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on > >> >>> > deltaspike-core, > >> >>> it's > >> >>> > a module > >> >>> > > >> >>> > @romain: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > again: > >> >>> >> 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). > >> >>> > > >> >>> > regards, > >> >>> > gerhard > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> : > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent > >> >>> >> but I dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark > >> >>> >> names are already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) > >> >>> >> so we shouldn't change it anymore. > >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : > >> >>> >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the > >> >>> >> > outside / overview but technically asymmetric because the > >> >>> >> > dependencies are > >> >>> >> different. > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to > >> >>> >> > the > >> >>> force. > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < > >> >>> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >>
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
+0 for position -1 for name or maven coordinates Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-14 13:21 GMT+01:00 : > Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming ridicuolus. Change > it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood why this very > lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on whether it has > different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit into the naming > scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of how often it is > used, the name change can be reflected on the website and we are dealing with > developers here. They are most likely capable of changing an artifact's name, > don't you think? > > So for a vote: > > +1 for changing it's name. > +1 for changing it's position. > > My two cents, > > Heiko > >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >> Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 >> An: deltaspike >> Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test- >> control? >> >> >> So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or not we can >> change a JAR's name pre 1.0? >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent >> > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used to >> > maintain it. >> > >> > +1 for a vote >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >> : >> >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our >> >> official statement. >> >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. >> >> until v2). >> >> >> >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with deltaspike. >> >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are still >> >> -> in the >> >> pre v1 mode/phase. >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >> : >> >> >> >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and >> >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 >> >>> or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have >> >>> the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a >> >>> 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. >> >>> Only new modules don't have them. >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >> : >> >>> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on >> >>> > deltaspike-core, >> >>> it's >> >>> > a module >> >>> > >> >>> > @romain: >> >>> > >> >>> > again: >> >>> >> 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). >> >>> > >> >>> > regards, >> >>> > gerhard >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >> : >> >>> > >> >>> >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent >> >>> >> but I dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark >> >>> >> names are already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) >> >>> >> so we shouldn't change it anymore. >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : >> >>> >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the >> >>> >> > outside / overview but technically asymmetric because the >> >>> >> > dependencies are >> >>> >> different. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to >> >>> >> > the >> >>> force. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < >> >>> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> However, we should rename it to something like >> >>> >> >> "container-control" to >> >>> >> match >> >>> >> >> our other project names. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg >> : >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I
AW: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
Seems this way. I think this whole dicussion is becoming ridicuolus. Change it to comply with the rest. I personally never understood why this very lonely 'module' cdiCtrl is located elsewhere, regardless on whether it has different dependencies or not. Additionally it does not fit into the naming scheme used otherwise. It's a version 0.6 and regardless of how often it is used, the name change can be reflected on the website and we are dealing with developers here. They are most likely capable of changing an artifact's name, don't you think? So for a vote: +1 for changing it's name. +1 for changing it's position. My two cents, Heiko > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: John D. Ament [mailto:john.d.am...@gmail.com] > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 12:28 > An: deltaspike > Betreff: Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test- > control? > > > So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or not we can > change a JAR's name pre 1.0? > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent > > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used to > > maintain it. > > > > +1 for a vote > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > > > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > : > >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our > >> official statement. > >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. > >> until v2). > >> > >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with deltaspike. > >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are still > >> -> in the > >> pre v1 mode/phase. > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > : > >> > >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and > >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 > >>> or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have > >>> the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a > >>> 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. > >>> Only new modules don't have them. > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > : > >>> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on > >>> > deltaspike-core, > >>> it's > >>> > a module > >>> > > >>> > @romain: > >>> > > >>> > again: > >>> >> 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). > >>> > > >>> > regards, > >>> > gerhard > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > : > >>> > > >>> >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent > >>> >> but I dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark > >>> >> names are already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) > >>> >> so we shouldn't change it anymore. > >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : > >>> >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the > >>> >> > outside / overview but technically asymmetric because the > >>> >> > dependencies are > >>> >> different. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to > >>> >> > the > >>> force. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < > >>> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> However, we should rename it to something like > >>> >> >> "container-control" to > >>> >> match > >>> >> >> our other project names. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg > : > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has > >>> >> >> > ANY > >>> benefit. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with > >>> >> >> > our > >>> real > >>> >> >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not > >>> >> >> > even > >>> have a > >>> >> >> > dependency to ds-core. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > How would you explain a fresh
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or not we can change a JAR's name pre 1.0? On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent > with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used to > maintain it. > > +1 for a vote > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our official >> statement. >> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. until >> v2). >> >> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with deltaspike. >> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are still in the >> pre v1 mode/phase. >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> >>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and >>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 or >>> we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have the >>> choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a 1.0 so >>> already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. Only new >>> modules don't have them. >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >>> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on deltaspike-core, >>> it's >>> > a module >>> > >>> > @romain: >>> > >>> > again: >>> >> 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). >>> > >>> > regards, >>> > gerhard >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >>> > >>> >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I >>> >> dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are >>> >> already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we >>> >> shouldn't change it anymore. >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : >>> >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / >>> >> > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are >>> >> different. >>> >> > >>> >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the >>> force. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < >>> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to >>> >> match >>> >> >> our other project names. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY >>> benefit. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our >>> real >>> >> >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even >>> have a >>> >> >> > dependency to ds-core. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that >>> all >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? >>> >> How do >>> >> >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's >>> >> really >>> >> >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ >>> >> >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > LieGrue, >>> >> >> > strub >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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 >>> >>
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used to maintain it. +1 for a vote Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our official > statement. > if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. until > v2). > > a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with deltaspike. > -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are still in the > pre v1 mode/phase. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > >> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and >> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 or >> we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have the >> choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a 1.0 so >> already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. Only new >> modules don't have them. >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on deltaspike-core, >> it's >> > a module >> > >> > @romain: >> > >> > again: >> >> 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). >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> > >> >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I >> >> dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are >> >> already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we >> >> shouldn't change it anymore. >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : >> >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / >> >> > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are >> >> different. >> >> > >> >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the >> force. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. >> >> >> >> >> >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to >> >> match >> >> >> our other project names. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> >> >> >> >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY >> benefit. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our >> real >> >> >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even >> have a >> >> >> > dependency to ds-core. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that >> all >> >> >> the >> >> >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? >> >> How do >> >> >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's >> >> really >> >> >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ >> >> >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > LieGrue, >> >> >> > strub >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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? >> >> >> > >>
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our official statement. if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. until v2). a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with deltaspike. -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are still in the pre v1 mode/phase. regards, gerhard 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and > core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 or > we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have the > choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a 1.0 so > already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. Only new > modules don't have them. > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on deltaspike-core, > it's > > a module > > > > @romain: > > > > again: > >> 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). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I > >> dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are > >> already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we > >> shouldn't change it anymore. > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : > >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / > >> > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are > >> different. > >> > > >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the > force. > >> > > >> > > >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > > >> >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. > >> >> > >> >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to > >> match > >> >> our other project names. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> >> > >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY > benefit. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our > real > >> >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even > have a > >> >> > dependency to ds-core. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that > all > >> >> the > >> >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? > >> How do > >> >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? > >> >> > > >> >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's > >> really > >> >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ > >> >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. > >> >> > > >> >> > LieGrue, > >> >> > strub > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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 : > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > 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 > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. Only new modules don't have them. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on deltaspike-core, it's > a module > > @romain: > > again: >> 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). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I >> dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are >> already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we >> shouldn't change it anymore. >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / >> > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are >> different. >> > >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the force. >> > >> > >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. >> >> >> >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to >> match >> >> our other project names. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> >> >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY benefit. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our real >> >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even have a >> >> > dependency to ds-core. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that all >> >> the >> >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? >> How do >> >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? >> >> > >> >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's >> really >> >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. >> >> > >> >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ >> >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. >> >> > >> >> > LieGrue, >> >> > strub >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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 : >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > 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 ea
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on deltaspike-core, it's a module @romain: again: > 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). regards, gerhard 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I > dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are > already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we > shouldn't change it anymore. > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : > > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / > > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are > different. > > > > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the force. > > > > > > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. > >> > >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to > match > >> our other project names. > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> > >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY benefit. > >> > > >> > > >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our real > >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even have a > >> > dependency to ds-core. > >> > > >> > > >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that all > >> the > >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? > How do > >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? > >> > > >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's > really > >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. > >> > > >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ > >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. > >> > > >> > LieGrue, > >> > strub > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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 : > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 > >> > >> > >> 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.c
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we shouldn't change it anymore. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén : > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are different. > > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the force. > > > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko > wrote: > >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. >> >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to match >> our other project names. >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY benefit. >> > >> > >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our real >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even have a >> > dependency to ds-core. >> > >> > >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that all >> the >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? How do >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? >> > >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's really >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. >> > >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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 : >> > >> >> > >> > 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 : >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> -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 >> > >> > >> 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 : >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not >> > change >> > >> > it's >> > >> > >> >>> name. >> > >>
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are different. But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the force. On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko wrote: > IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. > > However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to match > our other project names. > > > > 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > > > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY benefit. > > > > > > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our real > > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even have a > > dependency to ds-core. > > > > > > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that all > the > > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? How do > > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? > > > > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's really > > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. > > > > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ > > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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 : > > >> > > >> > 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 : > > >> > > > > >> > >> -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 > > >> > >> 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 : > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >>> 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
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to match our other project names. 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY benefit. > > > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our real > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even have a > dependency to ds-core. > > > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that all the > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? How do > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? > > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's really > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. > > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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 >: > > > >> 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 : > >> > >> > 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 : > >> > > > >> > >> -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 > >> > >> 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 : > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> 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 > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
