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 > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> 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 > <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > >> 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 > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> 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 > <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > >>> > 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 > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >>> > > >>> >> 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 <karl.kil...@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > 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 > <strub...@yahoo.de>: > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 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 > <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 > >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > > >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> > >> > >>> >> >> > >> > > > >>> >> >> > >> > > > >>> >> >> > >> > > >>> >> >> > >> > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> If you are not the addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail by mistake, and delete it. We thank you for your support.
