Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?

> What about global alternatives? Could we remove them, too? I fear not. The way to achieve global alternatives in weld is by putting @Priority on any @Alternative. But then it's a priory enabled. One would have to explicitly veto that bean. We could probably do something with out

Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?

Yep! What about global alternatives? Could we remove them, too? 2017-06-03 21:32 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament : > I agree with Thomas. While always minimal, if we can trim our internal > libraries and make them a bit more user friendly, it will simplify how > users leverage

Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?

I agree with Thomas. While always minimal, if we can trim our internal libraries and make them a bit more user friendly, it will simplify how users leverage our modules (e.g. maybe we don't have a core module anymore). This means better module isolation. If Mark brings config to Geronimo via MP

Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?

IMO we should try to do a cut in 2.0 and do a big cleanup (1.x should be in maintenance to support < JavaEE8): - Drop bval module and the servlet module. AFAIR the injection support is already in JavaEE 8. - We can also try to remove some core APIs (BeanManagerProvider) - Cleanup the JSF Module

Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?

imo there's not a lot we should drop, because users might need those parts e.g. for applications based on the micro-profile. maybe it's just a matter of documenting an useful combination of ee8 + ds and/or to highlight which parts of ds are covered by ee8. @ds2: maybe we should mainly take the

Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?

basically +1 we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are available in JavaEE8) BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are not ready. So IMO it's not necessary now. I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data Module e.g. 2017-06-03

Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?

@romain: +1 regards, gerhard 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > Hi > > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1 > > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" a écrit : > > > Hey guys > > > > I'm not sure there's

Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?

Hi Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1 Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" a écrit : > Hey guys > > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as feature goes, > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work >