with that argument (that it is something different), we don't have to
rename other parts (because they are different anyway).
regards,
gerhard
2014-02-15 8:18 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de:
Well, I do not get the reason at all.
If someone could tell me the benefits of this
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.
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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
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
+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
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
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
+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
exactly. We're still pre 1.0. Now's the time to do it.
It won't affect existing projects since the versions they're on are
still out there. Only if they want to upgrade.
I think changing the parent structure is the right thing to do.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Gerhard Petracek
18 matches
Mail list logo
