Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-11 Thread John D. Ament 
Yep, thats all necessary.  Once thats in, cdi spec jar should be buildable.

John

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:54 PM Thomas Andraschko <
andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> cool guys!
>
> +1 daniel, the patch looks good
>
> 2016-07-11 21:51 GMT+02:00 Daniel Cunha :
>
> > Cool!
> >
> > I have a patch to update maven-bundle-plugin and maven-checkstyle-plugin.
> > I had work on some changes on branch cdi-2.0 and I get some problems with
> > java8.
> >
> > It's necessary update this plugins to have build working fine, so I'll be
> > possible to use java8 features on the code. :)
> >
> > Let me see what do you think about it:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1134
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Mark Struberg
>  > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > txs will apply.
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Monday, 11 July 2016, 2:43, John D. Ament 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I've raised a JIRA with the API changes that I noticed.  There
> might
> > > be a
> > > > few more pending.  I tested it against Weld, apparently they're
> behind
> > a
> > > > little bit as well.
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6553
> > > >
> > > > - John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:46 PM Mark Struberg
>  > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>  >  Only constraint we
> > > >>  > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
> > > >>
> > > >>  Except we wrote that stuff ourselves for the spec. In that case the
> > > >>  original author is of course free to also contribute it to the ASF
> > > under
> > > >>  ALv2.
> > > >>
> > > >>  LieGrue,
> > > >>  strub
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  > Am 03.07.2016 um 23:01 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > >  > > >>  >:
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > Le 3 juil. 2016 22:56, "John D. Ament"
> > > >  a écrit :
> > > >>  >>
> > > >>  >> geronimo@ who?
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > Dev list
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >>
> > > >>  >> I emailed the OWB list as the OWB team is maintaining the JAR,
> > > > there's
> > > >>  > just
> > > >>  >> considerable overlap w/ the geronimo PMC that it becomes
> > > > confusing.
> > > >>  >>
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > Well you can also see geronimo community is doing so since people
> > > >>  overlap a
> > > >>  > lot there but strictly speaking this jar is not always driven by
> > owb.
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >> What about my comments about the javadocs?
> > > >>  >>
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > It is usually best effort but im +1 to make it better. Only
> > > constraint
> > > > we
> > > >>  > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >> John
> > > >>  >>
> > > >>  >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > >>  rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > >>  >> wrote:
> > > >>  >>
> > > >>  >>> Hi John,
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>  >>> -> geronimo@ ;)
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>  >>> Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up
> > > > to date
> > > >>  >>> version
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>  >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > >>  >>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > >>  >>>  | Old Wordpress
> > > > Blog
> > > >>  >>>  | Github <
> > > >>  >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > >>  >>> LinkedIn  |
> > > > Tomitriber
> > > >>  >>>  | JavaEE Factory
> > > >>  >>> 
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>  >>> 2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament
> > > > :
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>   Hey guys
> > > >>  
> > > >>   I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2
> > > > spec jar.  I'm
> > > >>   wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
> > > >>  
> > > >>   In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based
> > > > on the changes
> > > >>  > in
> > > >>   CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its
> > > > pretty heavy on
> > > >>   javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm
> > > > seeing in here.
> > > >>  
> > > >>   I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to
> > > > build the JAR?
> > > >>  
> > > >>   John
> > > >>  
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Cunha
> > https://twitter.com/dvlc_
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > http://www.tomitribe.io
> >
>

Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-11 Thread Thomas Andraschko 
cool guys!

+1 daniel, the patch looks good

2016-07-11 21:51 GMT+02:00 Daniel Cunha :

> Cool!
>
> I have a patch to update maven-bundle-plugin and maven-checkstyle-plugin.
> I had work on some changes on branch cdi-2.0 and I get some problems with
> java8.
>
> It's necessary update this plugins to have build working fine, so I'll be
> possible to use java8 features on the code. :)
>
> Let me see what do you think about it:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1134
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Mark Struberg  >
> wrote:
>
> > txs will apply.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Monday, 11 July 2016, 2:43, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> > > > I've raised a JIRA with the API changes that I noticed.  There might
> > be a
> > > few more pending.  I tested it against Weld, apparently they're behind
> a
> > > little bit as well.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6553
> > >
> > > - John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:46 PM Mark Struberg  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>  >  Only constraint we
> > >>  > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
> > >>
> > >>  Except we wrote that stuff ourselves for the spec. In that case the
> > >>  original author is of course free to also contribute it to the ASF
> > under
> > >>  ALv2.
> > >>
> > >>  LieGrue,
> > >>  strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  > Am 03.07.2016 um 23:01 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >  > >>  >:
> > >>  >
> > >>  > Le 3 juil. 2016 22:56, "John D. Ament"
> > >  a écrit :
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >> geronimo@ who?
> > >>  >
> > >>  > Dev list
> > >>  >
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >> I emailed the OWB list as the OWB team is maintaining the JAR,
> > > there's
> > >>  > just
> > >>  >> considerable overlap w/ the geronimo PMC that it becomes
> > > confusing.
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >
> > >>  > Well you can also see geronimo community is doing so since people
> > >>  overlap a
> > >>  > lot there but strictly speaking this jar is not always driven by
> owb.
> > >>  >
> > >>  >> What about my comments about the javadocs?
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >
> > >>  > It is usually best effort but im +1 to make it better. Only
> > constraint
> > > we
> > >>  > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
> > >>  >
> > >>  >> John
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > >>  rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > >>  >> wrote:
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >>> Hi John,
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>> -> geronimo@ ;)
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>> Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up
> > > to date
> > >>  >>> version
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>  >>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > >>  >>>  | Old Wordpress
> > > Blog
> > >>  >>>  | Github <
> > >>  >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > >>  >>> LinkedIn  |
> > > Tomitriber
> > >>  >>>  | JavaEE Factory
> > >>  >>> 
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>> 2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament
> > > :
> > >>  >>>
> > >>   Hey guys
> > >>  
> > >>   I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2
> > > spec jar.  I'm
> > >>   wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
> > >>  
> > >>   In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based
> > > on the changes
> > >>  > in
> > >>   CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its
> > > pretty heavy on
> > >>   javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm
> > > seeing in here.
> > >>  
> > >>   I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to
> > > build the JAR?
> > >>  
> > >>   John
> > >>  
> > >>  >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Cunha
> https://twitter.com/dvlc_
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://www.tomitribe.io
>

Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-11 Thread Daniel Cunha 
Cool!

I have a patch to update maven-bundle-plugin and maven-checkstyle-plugin.
I had work on some changes on branch cdi-2.0 and I get some problems with
java8.

It's necessary update this plugins to have build working fine, so I'll be
possible to use java8 features on the code. :)

Let me see what do you think about it:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1134

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> txs will apply.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Monday, 11 July 2016, 2:43, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> > > I've raised a JIRA with the API changes that I noticed.  There might
> be a
> > few more pending.  I tested it against Weld, apparently they're behind a
> > little bit as well.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6553
> >
> > - John
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:46 PM Mark Struberg 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>  >  Only constraint we
> >>  > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
> >>
> >>  Except we wrote that stuff ourselves for the spec. In that case the
> >>  original author is of course free to also contribute it to the ASF
> under
> >>  ALv2.
> >>
> >>  LieGrue,
> >>  strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  > Am 03.07.2016 um 23:01 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
> >  >>  >:
> >>  >
> >>  > Le 3 juil. 2016 22:56, "John D. Ament"
> >  a écrit :
> >>  >>
> >>  >> geronimo@ who?
> >>  >
> >>  > Dev list
> >>  >
> >>  >>
> >>  >> I emailed the OWB list as the OWB team is maintaining the JAR,
> > there's
> >>  > just
> >>  >> considerable overlap w/ the geronimo PMC that it becomes
> > confusing.
> >>  >>
> >>  >
> >>  > Well you can also see geronimo community is doing so since people
> >>  overlap a
> >>  > lot there but strictly speaking this jar is not always driven by owb.
> >>  >
> >>  >> What about my comments about the javadocs?
> >>  >>
> >>  >
> >>  > It is usually best effort but im +1 to make it better. Only
> constraint
> > we
> >>  > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
> >>  >
> >>  >> John
> >>  >>
> >>  >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>  rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> >>  >> wrote:
> >>  >>
> >>  >>> Hi John,
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> -> geronimo@ ;)
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up
> > to date
> >>  >>> version
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>  >>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>  >>>  | Old Wordpress
> > Blog
> >>  >>>  | Github <
> >>  >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>  >>> LinkedIn  |
> > Tomitriber
> >>  >>>  | JavaEE Factory
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> 2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament
> > :
> >>  >>>
> >>   Hey guys
> >>  
> >>   I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2
> > spec jar.  I'm
> >>   wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
> >>  
> >>   In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based
> > on the changes
> >>  > in
> >>   CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its
> > pretty heavy on
> >>   javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm
> > seeing in here.
> >>  
> >>   I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to
> > build the JAR?
> >>  
> >>   John
> >>  
> >>  >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>



-- 
Daniel Cunha
https://twitter.com/dvlc_
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://www.tomitribe.io

Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-11 Thread Mark Struberg 
txs will apply.

LieGrue,
strub





> On Monday, 11 July 2016, 2:43, John D. Ament  wrote:
> > I've raised a JIRA with the API changes that I noticed.  There might be a
> few more pending.  I tested it against Weld, apparently they're behind a
> little bit as well.
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6553
> 
> - John
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:46 PM Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>>  >  Only constraint we
>>  > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
>> 
>>  Except we wrote that stuff ourselves for the spec. In that case the
>>  original author is of course free to also contribute it to the ASF under
>>  ALv2.
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  > Am 03.07.2016 um 23:01 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau 
> >  >:
>>  >
>>  > Le 3 juil. 2016 22:56, "John D. Ament" 
>  a écrit :
>>  >>
>>  >> geronimo@ who?
>>  >
>>  > Dev list
>>  >
>>  >>
>>  >> I emailed the OWB list as the OWB team is maintaining the JAR, 
> there's
>>  > just
>>  >> considerable overlap w/ the geronimo PMC that it becomes 
> confusing.
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  > Well you can also see geronimo community is doing so since people
>>  overlap a
>>  > lot there but strictly speaking this jar is not always driven by owb.
>>  >
>>  >> What about my comments about the javadocs?
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  > It is usually best effort but im +1 to make it better. Only constraint 
> we
>>  > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
>>  >
>>  >> John
>>  >>
>>  >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>  rmannibu...@gmail.com>
>>  >> wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >>> Hi John,
>>  >>>
>>  >>> -> geronimo@ ;)
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up 
> to date
>>  >>> version
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>  >>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>  >>>  | Old Wordpress 
> Blog
>>  >>>  | Github <
>>  >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>  >>> LinkedIn  | 
> Tomitriber
>>  >>>  | JavaEE Factory
>>  >>> 
>>  >>>
>>  >>> 2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament 
> :
>>  >>>
>>   Hey guys
>>  
>>   I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2 
> spec jar.  I'm
>>   wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
>>  
>>   In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based 
> on the changes
>>  > in
>>   CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its 
> pretty heavy on
>>   javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm 
> seeing in here.
>>  
>>   I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to 
> build the JAR?
>>  
>>   John
>>  
>>  >>>
>> 
>> 
>

Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-10 Thread John D. Ament 
I've raised a JIRA with the API changes that I noticed.  There might be a
few more pending.  I tested it against Weld, apparently they're behind a
little bit as well.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6553

- John

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:46 PM Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> >  Only constraint we
> > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
>
> Except we wrote that stuff ourselves for the spec. In that case the
> original author is of course free to also contribute it to the ASF under
> ALv2.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> > Am 03.07.2016 um 23:01 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > Le 3 juil. 2016 22:56, "John D. Ament"  a écrit :
> >>
> >> geronimo@ who?
> >
> > Dev list
> >
> >>
> >> I emailed the OWB list as the OWB team is maintaining the JAR, there's
> > just
> >> considerable overlap w/ the geronimo PMC that it becomes confusing.
> >>
> >
> > Well you can also see geronimo community is doing so since people
> overlap a
> > lot there but strictly speaking this jar is not always driven by owb.
> >
> >> What about my comments about the javadocs?
> >>
> >
> > It is usually best effort but im +1 to make it better. Only constraint we
> > have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
> >
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi John,
> >>>
> >>> -> geronimo@ ;)
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up to date
> >>> version
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>>  | Old Wordpress Blog
> >>>  | Github <
> >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >>> LinkedIn  | Tomitriber
> >>>  | JavaEE Factory
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
> >>>
>  Hey guys
> 
>  I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2 spec jar.  I'm
>  wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
> 
>  In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based on the changes
> > in
>  CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its pretty heavy on
>  javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm seeing in here.
> 
>  I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to build the JAR?
> 
>  John
> 
> >>>
>
>

Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-06 Thread Mark Struberg 
>  Only constraint we
> have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.

Except we wrote that stuff ourselves for the spec. In that case the original 
author is of course free to also contribute it to the ASF under ALv2.

LieGrue,
strub



> Am 03.07.2016 um 23:01 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> Le 3 juil. 2016 22:56, "John D. Ament"  a écrit :
>> 
>> geronimo@ who?
> 
> Dev list
> 
>> 
>> I emailed the OWB list as the OWB team is maintaining the JAR, there's
> just
>> considerable overlap w/ the geronimo PMC that it becomes confusing.
>> 
> 
> Well you can also see geronimo community is doing so since people overlap a
> lot there but strictly speaking this jar is not always driven by owb.
> 
>> What about my comments about the javadocs?
>> 
> 
> It is usually best effort but im +1 to make it better. Only constraint we
> have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.
> 
>> John
>> 
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi John,
>>> 
>>> -> geronimo@ ;)
>>> 
>>> Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up to date
>>> version
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>>  | Old Wordpress Blog
>>>  | Github <
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn  | Tomitriber
>>>  | JavaEE Factory
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
>>> 
 Hey guys
 
 I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2 spec jar.  I'm
 wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
 
 In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based on the changes
> in
 CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its pretty heavy on
 javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm seeing in here.
 
 I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to build the JAR?
 
 John
 
>>>

Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-03 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau 
Le 3 juil. 2016 22:56, "John D. Ament"  a écrit :
>
> geronimo@ who?

Dev list

>
> I emailed the OWB list as the OWB team is maintaining the JAR, there's
just
> considerable overlap w/ the geronimo PMC that it becomes confusing.
>

Well you can also see geronimo community is doing so since people overlap a
lot there but strictly speaking this jar is not always driven by owb.

> What about my comments about the javadocs?
>

It is usually best effort but im +1 to make it better. Only constraint we
have is to not copy official comments/spec AFAIK.

> John
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > -> geronimo@ ;)
> >
> > Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up to date
> > version
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Wordpress Blog
> >  | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn  | Tomitriber
> >  | JavaEE Factory
> > 
> >
> > 2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
> >
> > > Hey guys
> > >
> > > I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2 spec jar.  I'm
> > > wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
> > >
> > > In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based on the changes
in
> > > CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its pretty heavy on
> > > javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm seeing in here.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to build the JAR?
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> >

Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-03 Thread John D. Ament 
geronimo@ who?

I emailed the OWB list as the OWB team is maintaining the JAR, there's just
considerable overlap w/ the geronimo PMC that it becomes confusing.

What about my comments about the javadocs?

John

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> -> geronimo@ ;)
>
> Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up to date
> version
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Wordpress Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Tomitriber
>  | JavaEE Factory
> 
>
> 2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
>
> > Hey guys
> >
> > I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2 spec jar.  I'm
> > wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
> >
> > In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based on the changes in
> > CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its pretty heavy on
> > javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm seeing in here.
> >
> > I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to build the JAR?
> >
> > John
> >
>

Re: CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-03 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau 
Hi John,

-> geronimo@ ;)

Otherwise +1 for jenkins and to replace current 2.0 by an up to date version


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Wordpress Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Tomitriber
 | JavaEE Factory


2016-07-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :

> Hey guys
>
> I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2 spec jar.  I'm
> wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?
>
> In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based on the changes in
> CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its pretty heavy on
> javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm seeing in here.
>
> I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to build the JAR?
>
> John
>

CDI 2.0 Spec JAR

2016-07-03 Thread John D. Ament 
Hey guys

I'm looking at the current state of the Geronimo CDI 2 spec jar.  I'm
wondering, what version of CDI 2 is it based on currently?

In addition, I'm planning to apply patches to it based on the changes in
CDI 2.  I notice that unlike most geronimo specs, its pretty heavy on
javadocs.  I plan to restate them, similar to what i'm seeing in here.

I'm wondering if we can enable a build in jenkins to build the JAR?

John