deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Porter" <lightguard...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Heading towards a 0.4 release
Date Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:10:20 GMT
Wrt xml-config, I'll be working on configuring cdi via osgi blueprint, over in the Aries project.
If we want to port over the seam config stuff, we can certainly do that too. 
—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> @Gerhard: the point about proxy was i thought it was not straight forward
> since some people will not want to bring any additional lib for it (because
> they use only interfaces and proxy libs can conflcts). Wonder if handling
> it with a dep optional couldn't do the trick too.
> *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> 2013/3/26 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>> @ romain:
>> imo it doesn't make sense to remove something (and add it later on again),
>> if it's just a matter of few hours (to do it immediately).
>> anybody is welcome to work on DS-333.
>>
>> @ DS-288
>> it's almost done and as i mentioned earlier i'll finish it once DS-289 is
>> done.
>> (yes we need it for 0.4)
>>
>> @ xml-config
>> afair we had an agreement already, but nobody worked on it.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/3/26 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
>>
>> > I think leaving proxy support to full interface only for now makes sense,
>> > we can enrich this further in another release.  How about we close 113
>> as a
>> > reduced scope and open a new issue for remaining items?  I see you
>> already
>> > did some Gerhard, but we still have abstract classes as a case as well.
>> >
>> > Gerhard, can you also comment on 288? Do we need this in 0.4 or can it
>> > wait?
>> >
>> > Romain, I didn't quite get you.  Are you saying you're on hold on this
>> one
>> > (dependent on something?).
>> >
>> > Does anyone believe we need Seam XML Config in 0.4? (DS-269 to 272).  I'd
>> > prefer to move it.
>> >
>> > For DS-105, it looks like consensus is to keep it since it's needed for
>> > older Weld versions. If so can we close as will not fix?
>> >
>> > Jason P - Can you look at DS-132/134? Do we need these?  There are other
>> > catch like issues out there.  Are they needed?
>> >
>> > Mark S - You have 12 issues assigned to you :/
>> >
>> > BTW I created a new filter - only open issues [1]
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323789
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > <rmannibucau@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi
>> > >
>> > > DS-60: we are a bunch o wait after it
>> > >
>> > > DS-113: think we can push partial bean to another release and keep
>> > > interface handling for this iteration (well if you import asm part
>> right
>> > > now it can work but then the question will be which shade version? a
>> > proxy
>> > > as in cxf?....)
>> > >
>> > > other are not blocker IMO
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > *Romain Manni-Bucau*
>> > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
>> > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
>> > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
>> > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
>> > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2013/3/25 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>> > >
>> > > > hi john,
>> > > >
>> > > > @ examples:
>> > > > we haven't discussed what our goal is here
>> > > >
>> > > > @ DS-60
>> > > > imo we should do it for 0.5 (and release 0.5 >short< after 0.4)
>> > > >
>> > > > @ DS-113
>> > > > we have to change the proxy-lib and move it to an own module
>> > > > (i'll create the module today)
>> > > >
>> > > > @ DS-263
>> > > > not needed, but nice to have -> +1
>> > > > (you can have a look at the setup we used in codi for it to know what
>> > you
>> > > > need)
>> > > >
>> > > > @ DS-278
>> > > > i re-opened it because we should find a better approach imo.
>> > > > however, it isn't a real blocker
>> > > >
>> > > > regards,
>> > > > gerhard
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2013/3/25 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > > All,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Based on the flurry of threads, I wanted to help get things started
>> > to
>> > > > move
>> > > > > towards a 0.4 release.  I created the filter at [1] to show our
>> > current
>> > > > > progress.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We currently have 50 issues fixed in 0.4, with 27 unresolved
for
>> the
>> > > > > release.  Some of these issues stick out, with me thinking that
>> we've
>> > > > > actually completed them but perhaps need some finalization (note:
>> > I'll
>> > > > use
>> > > > > the abbreviation DS for the DELTASPIKE key in JIRA which is TL;DR)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DS-306 - I see examples.  Do we need more?
>> > > > > DS-60 - I believe we have started integrating CDI Query.  Should
>> this
>> > > > have
>> > > > > spawned child tasks?
>> > > > > DS-113 - Gerhard took the reigns on this one and apparently it
>> works
>> > > just
>> > > > > like the Seam3 version.  Can this be closed?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Some low hanging fruit:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DS-263 - I was actually looking for something like this as well.
>> >  I've
>> > > > been
>> > > > > playing with JBoss modules a lot and think having a binary release
>> > > would
>> > > > > help add DS as a JBoss Module.  If this isn't complete, do we
need
>> it
>> > > in
>> > > > > 0.4?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DS-278 - If not done, seems easy enough to add.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DS-288 - Seems like another needed feature, but wasn't too
>> difficult
>> > in
>> > > > > either CODI or Seam3.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DS-289 - Ironically, this one isn't even scheduled for 0.4 but
is a
>> > > > blocker
>> > > > > for the release.  I'll update it as such.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If you have something in the list below that shouldn't be (e.g.
>> it's
>> > > not
>> > > > > needed for 0.4) we should get it rescheduled.  Since previously
>> only
>> > > 289
>> > > > > was declared needed for 0.4 we should be looking at everything
>> else.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > John
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323788
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message