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 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
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 andraschko.tho...@gmail.comwrote: 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
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 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.comwrote: 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
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 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.comwrote: 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
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 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.comwrote: 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:
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 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.comwrote: 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
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 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.comwrote: 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:
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 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.comwrote: 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
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 it-media.k...@daimler.com: 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.comwrote: 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
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 rmannibu...@gmail.com: +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 it-media.k...@daimler.com: 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.comwrote: 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
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 andraschko.tho...@gmail.com 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 rmannibu...@gmail.com: +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 it-media.k...@daimler.com: 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.comwrote: IMHO there is no difference between our
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 gudnabr...@gmail.com 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com 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 andraschko.tho...@gmail.com 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 rmannibu...@gmail.com: +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 it-media.k...@daimler.com: 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
