+1, i use meecrowave-core in scope compile so didnt hit that need but I fully understand it - had the same when was running after real portability. I wouldnt call it meecrowave-spec-apis but that's a minor point (meecrowave-api is not perfect too but less weird than specs and api*s* for me, maybe just a personnal feeling)
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> 2018-03-13 9:51 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>: > Hi folks! > > I just did hack on a small Meecrowave sample with Sven Ruppert and got > good feedback. > One of his input is that the hardest part seems to be pulling together the > various spec versions. > > So people seem to appreciate if we would provide a 'meecrowave-spec-apis' > uberjar where we bundle all those together. > That way people would just need to add the dependency to the APIs (scope > provided) and the meecrowave impl. > It seems way too hard for most people to get all the different spec > dependencies right. > > Wdyt? > > LieGrue, > strub > >
