Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

2014-02-16 Thread Ove Ranheim
Dear DS team! Two months ago the team discussed a 0.6 release. What is your plan? There are many new great features since 0.5, so what is stopping the DS-team to provide a new release? Looking through the JIRA there are 30 open issues, many of them regards JSF and Tests. I don’t use JSF

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

2014-02-16 Thread Thomas Andraschko
+1 for 0.6 and 1.0 as the next release after 0.6 2014-02-16 12:40 GMT+01:00 Ove Ranheim oranh...@gmail.com: Dear DS team! Two months ago the team discussed a 0.6 release. What is your plan? There are many new great features since 0.5, so what is stopping the DS-team to provide a new

[jira] [Commented] (DELTASPIKE-521) CDI CTL TCK fails on Windows/Weld 1.1.10

2014-02-16 Thread Gerhard Petracek (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-521?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13902689#comment-13902689 ] Gerhard Petracek commented on DELTASPIKE-521: - it looks like an issue in

[jira] [Updated] (DELTASPIKE-508) @Transaction return NPE on qualified Datasource injections

2014-02-16 Thread Gerhard Petracek (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Gerhard Petracek updated DELTASPIKE-508: Priority: Minor (was: Major) Fix Version/s: 0.7 Assignee:

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

2014-02-16 Thread Ove Ranheim
Hi Gerhard, Was your point the commit graph or the professional support? I would recognize Apache Software to be an Open Source Foundation. My intent was not identify myself as a customer to shop commercial product support, on something not completed, but to urge the importance of getting

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

2014-02-16 Thread Thomas Andraschko
+1 Ove We are really late for an 0.6. I would release 0.6 this/next month and after that, lets finish 1.0. We should fix all open issues and finish the documentation!

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

2014-02-16 Thread Gerhard Petracek
hi ove, i was only talking about the commits. regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - JavaEE Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2014-02-16 22:07 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko andraschko.tho...@gmail.com:

Re: [Discuss] Data Module - Transactional Repositories

2014-02-16 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi Thomas, would be great to get it in 0.6, any idea if it would be possible? I should be able to help once decided and if needed. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github:

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

2014-02-16 Thread Ove Ranheim
The commit graph shows too few committers.. and I appreciate your work! I also notice too few Redhat/JBoss Weld/Seam committers left on the project. How come? /ove On 16. feb. 2014, at 22:10, Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote: hi ove, i was only talking about the commits.

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

2014-02-16 Thread Jason Porter
Probably because we've become busy with some other projects and priorities :(— Sent from Mailbox for iPhone On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Ove Ranheim oranh...@gmail.com wrote: The commit graph shows too few committers.. and I appreciate your work! I also notice too few Redhat/JBoss

Re: [Discuss] Data Module - Transactional Repositories

2014-02-16 Thread Thomas Hug
Yes would be great to get this sorted out soon. Looks like 2) is the preferred way to go, which would also mean some work on the JPA module. - Any thoughts on how the Data EntityManagerResolver fits in the picture there? - Also [1] seems rather nasty in this context. Is there a better way dealing

Re: [Discuss] Data Module - Transactional Repositories

2014-02-16 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
Hello, 1) a producer + qualifier would be easier on entitymanager side so I'd propagate it to the repository. 2) em in transactionscoped should be useless since if you produce the em you are already in a scope so already cached by CDI itself, no? 3) we don't really need interceptors since we can