deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:55:55 GMT
nope, TLP only means maturity on the social/community side.

For any users it's just a matter of 2 minutes doing a search/replace on the imports and then
rebuild their app.
That's nothing which we cannot do easily. 


LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> To: gudnabrsam@gmail.com; deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> 
> I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp = maturity
> = stability
> Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, "Matt Benson" <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> a 
> écrit :
> 
>>  I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked
>>  concepts.  I would think most developers would not be surprised by the idea
>>  that any release number < 1.0 is not guaranteed not to change.
>> 
>>  Matt
>> 
>> 
>>  On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Cody Lerum <cody.lerum@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>  > Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to
>>  @Typed()
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament 
> <john.d.ament@gmail.com
>>  > >wrote:
>>  >
>>  > > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>  > rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>  > > >wrote:
>>  > >
>>  > > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact
>>  > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" 
> <john.d.ament@gmail.com> a
>>  > écrit :
>>  > > >
>>  > > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking 
> integrations.
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
>>  > > > > gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
>>  > > > > > wrote:
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike 
> is a tlp).
>>  > > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > > regards,
>>  > > > > > gerhard
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau 
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some 
> instability is
>>  fine
>>  > > > IMHO
>>  > > > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" 
> <cody.lerum@gmail.com> a
>>  > écrit
>>  > > :
>>  > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > One small problem is the early 
> integration of DS into JBoss
>>  > > Tools -
>>  > > > > > > > 
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > I don't know how many people if any 
> are using that
>>  integration
>>  > > yet.
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete 
> Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
>>  > > > wrote:
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
>>  > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian 
> Kaltepoth <
>>  > > > > christian@kaltepoth.de
>>  > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>  > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum 
> <cody.lerum@gmail.com>
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > >> drop em.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>
>>  > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 
> 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
>>  > > > > > struberg@yahoo.de>
>>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>  > > > > > > > > >>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop 
> them. annotations are like interfaces
>>  > > > nowadays.
>>  > > > > > So
>>  > > > > > > > this
>>  > > > > > > > > >> is
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> strub
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message 
> -----
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard 
> Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> To: 
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Cc:
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, 
> March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] 
> re-visit "annotation" package/s
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> we had an 
> agreement to use a (sub-)package named
>>  > > > "annotation"
>>  > > > > > for
>>  > > > > > > > all
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> our
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations within 
> a package.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels 
> a bit clumsy if a package
>>  (currently)
>>  > > just
>>  > > > > > > > contains
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> e.g. 
> org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only
>>  > contains
>>  > > > the
>>  > > > > > > > package
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> 
> "annotation".
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> currently we have 
> a mixture (some parts are using the
>>  > > > > > "annotation"
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> package
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> and some 
> don't)
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to 
> align it the one way or the other.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently 
> in favour of dropping the
>>  > > > > "annotation"-package/s.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> regards,
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> gerhard
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > > --
>>  > > > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
>>  > > > > > > > > > Blog: 
> http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>  > > > > > > > > > Twitter: 
> http://twitter.com/chkal
>>  > > > > > > > > > GitHub: 
> https://github.com/chkal
>>  > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > >
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > >
>>  > >
>>  >
>> 
> 

Mime
View raw message