You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bval.apache.org by Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> on 2013/09/17 17:45:04 UTC
BVal 1.0 and 1.1
Hi all,
Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his branch [1].
Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0 implementation.
There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am honestly not
confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently sorted
from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow 1.1 to
become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of 1.1
features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something similar for CDI
specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that regard).
Matt
[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
Re: BVal 1.0 and 1.1
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Maybe detail these api. That said se can release 1.0 and do it in a 2.0.1.0
means impl is mature and most of users expect just the spec
Le 17 sept. 2013 19:51, "Gerhard Petracek" <ge...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> @matt: +1
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2013/9/17 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>
> > On Sep 17, 2013 12:30 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well for *spec* users it is not important Matt.
> > >
> > You are correct, but I still say (and I'm not the first) that we need to
> > provide a stable API for those users who need to create custom extensions
> > to BVal that require deeper integration than the specification can
> provide.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > > Le 17 sept. 2013 19:27, "Matt Benson" <gu...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as
> bval-1.0
> > and
> > >> > create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with
> > this
> > >> > code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will
> become
> > the
> > >> > on-going development code base.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> The problem with this approach as I see it is that we never thoroughly
> > >> ironed out the APIs in trunk. Once we call it 1.0 we are fairly well
> > >> committed to the Apache BVal APIs we have exposed, so it's important
> to
> > >> make those something we are all happy with. In any case I anticipate
> we
> > >> would have a 1.0.x branch, but for everything 1.x the APIs should be
> > >> compatible IMO.
> > >>
> > >> Matt
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK
> > >> > compliant. If not, what else are still missing?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Albert
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi all,
> > >> > > Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his
> branch
> > [1].
> > >> > > Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0
> > implementation.
> > >> > > There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
> > >> > > applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am
> honestly
> > not
> > >> > > confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently
> > sorted
> > >> > > from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow
> > 1.1 to
> > >> > > become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of
> > 1.1
> > >> > > features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something
> similar
> > for
> > >> > CDI
> > >> > > specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that
> > regard).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Matt
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Albert Lee.
> > >> >
> >
>
Re: BVal 1.0 and 1.1
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
@matt: +1
regards,
gerhard
2013/9/17 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> On Sep 17, 2013 12:30 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well for *spec* users it is not important Matt.
> >
> You are correct, but I still say (and I'm not the first) that we need to
> provide a stable API for those users who need to create custom extensions
> to BVal that require deeper integration than the specification can provide.
>
> Matt
>
> > Le 17 sept. 2013 19:27, "Matt Benson" <gu...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as bval-1.0
> and
> >> > create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with
> this
> >> > code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will become
> the
> >> > on-going development code base.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> The problem with this approach as I see it is that we never thoroughly
> >> ironed out the APIs in trunk. Once we call it 1.0 we are fairly well
> >> committed to the Apache BVal APIs we have exposed, so it's important to
> >> make those something we are all happy with. In any case I anticipate we
> >> would have a 1.0.x branch, but for everything 1.x the APIs should be
> >> compatible IMO.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK
> >> > compliant. If not, what else are still missing?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Albert
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > > Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his branch
> [1].
> >> > > Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0
> implementation.
> >> > > There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
> >> > > applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am honestly
> not
> >> > > confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently
> sorted
> >> > > from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow
> 1.1 to
> >> > > become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of
> 1.1
> >> > > features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something similar
> for
> >> > CDI
> >> > > specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that
> regard).
> >> > >
> >> > > Matt
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Albert Lee.
> >> >
>
Re: BVal 1.0 and 1.1
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 17, 2013 12:30 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Well for *spec* users it is not important Matt.
>
You are correct, but I still say (and I'm not the first) that we need to
provide a stable API for those users who need to create custom extensions
to BVal that require deeper integration than the specification can provide.
Matt
> Le 17 sept. 2013 19:27, "Matt Benson" <gu...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as bval-1.0
and
>> > create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with
this
>> > code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will become
the
>> > on-going development code base.
>> >
>> >
>> The problem with this approach as I see it is that we never thoroughly
>> ironed out the APIs in trunk. Once we call it 1.0 we are fairly well
>> committed to the Apache BVal APIs we have exposed, so it's important to
>> make those something we are all happy with. In any case I anticipate we
>> would have a 1.0.x branch, but for everything 1.x the APIs should be
>> compatible IMO.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> > BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK
>> > compliant. If not, what else are still missing?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Albert
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org>
wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > > Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his branch
[1].
>> > > Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0
implementation.
>> > > There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
>> > > applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am honestly
not
>> > > confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently
sorted
>> > > from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow
1.1 to
>> > > become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of
1.1
>> > > features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something similar
for
>> > CDI
>> > > specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that
regard).
>> > >
>> > > Matt
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Albert Lee.
>> >
Re: BVal 1.0 and 1.1
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Well for *spec* users it is not important Matt.
Le 17 sept. 2013 19:27, "Matt Benson" <gu...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as bval-1.0 and
> > create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with this
> > code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will become
> the
> > on-going development code base.
> >
> >
> The problem with this approach as I see it is that we never thoroughly
> ironed out the APIs in trunk. Once we call it 1.0 we are fairly well
> committed to the Apache BVal APIs we have exposed, so it's important to
> make those something we are all happy with. In any case I anticipate we
> would have a 1.0.x branch, but for everything 1.x the APIs should be
> compatible IMO.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> > BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK
> > compliant. If not, what else are still missing?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Albert
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his branch
> [1].
> > > Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0
> implementation.
> > > There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
> > > applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am honestly
> not
> > > confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently
> sorted
> > > from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow 1.1
> to
> > > become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of 1.1
> > > features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something similar for
> > CDI
> > > specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that
> regard).
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Albert Lee.
> >
>
Re: BVal 1.0 and 1.1
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as bval-1.0 and
> create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with this
> code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will become the
> on-going development code base.
>
>
The problem with this approach as I see it is that we never thoroughly
ironed out the APIs in trunk. Once we call it 1.0 we are fairly well
committed to the Apache BVal APIs we have exposed, so it's important to
make those something we are all happy with. In any case I anticipate we
would have a 1.0.x branch, but for everything 1.x the APIs should be
compatible IMO.
Matt
> BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK
> compliant. If not, what else are still missing?
>
> Thanks,
> Albert
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his branch [1].
> > Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0 implementation.
> > There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
> > applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am honestly not
> > confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently sorted
> > from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow 1.1 to
> > become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of 1.1
> > features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something similar for
> CDI
> > specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that regard).
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Albert Lee.
>
Re: BVal 1.0 and 1.1
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Tcks are passing
Le 17 sept. 2013 18:47, "Albert Lee" <al...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as bval-1.0 and
> create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with this
> code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will become the
> on-going development code base.
>
> BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK
> compliant. If not, what else are still missing?
>
> Thanks,
> Albert
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his branch [1].
> > Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0 implementation.
> > There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
> > applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am honestly not
> > confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently sorted
> > from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow 1.1 to
> > become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of 1.1
> > features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something similar for
> CDI
> > specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that regard).
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Albert Lee.
>
Re: BVal 1.0 and 1.1
Posted by Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>.
Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as bval-1.0 and
create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with this
code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will become the
on-going development code base.
BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK
compliant. If not, what else are still missing?
Thanks,
Albert
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his branch [1].
> Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0 implementation.
> There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly
> applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am honestly not
> confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently sorted
> from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow 1.1 to
> become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of 1.1
> features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something similar for CDI
> specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that regard).
>
> Matt
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/
>
--
Albert Lee.