You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltaspike.apache.org by Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de> on 2013/04/01 11:06:43 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
+1 for dropping
2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <co...@gmail.com>
> drop em.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@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 <ge...@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
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>.
We understand what it means, but many out in the wild don't understand
that, and I think Romain is correct that many view it as "oh, this is
stable and production ready now."
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> 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 <rm...@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" <gu...@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 <co...@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"
> > <jo...@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
> > <rm...@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"
> > <co...@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 <pm...@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
> > <co...@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 <ge...@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
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
--
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Right but not for users ;)
In all case we can get it for 0.4 no? So no real issue
Le 2 avr. 2013 22:56, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> 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 <rm...@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" <gu...@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 <co...@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"
> > <jo...@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
> > <rm...@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"
> > <co...@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 <pm...@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
> > <co...@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 <ge...@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
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
imo the only realistic way to >reduce< the probability that we need changes
later on (esp. before v1) is to get involved on a regular basis.
e.g. i like what cody lerum does. he migrates a real application (in
parallel) and asks a lot of useful question (in the irc channel).
that's also a kind of feedback.
regards,
gerhard
2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> IMO we can begore being tlp change it (notifying tools we know).
>
> Then well need to handle @deprecated for at least ine release...would hurt
> in code for nthg IMHO
> Le 2 avr. 2013 23:23, "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > In this case it's about the related tooling that broke. Until JBIDE
> fixes
> > this, users will end up with the wrong annotations in their code.
> >
> > IMHO, I'm not saying no we can't change things like this, but if we do
> > change them and there are known downstream impacts for tools that support
> > DS we should let those tools know what we are doing before we make the
> > change.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <rm...@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" <gu...@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 <co...@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"
> > > > <jo...@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
> > > > <rm...@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"
> > > > <co...@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 <pm...@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
> > > > <co...@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 <ge...@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
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
IMO we can begore being tlp change it (notifying tools we know).
Then well need to handle @deprecated for at least ine release...would hurt
in code for nthg IMHO
Le 2 avr. 2013 23:23, "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Mark,
>
> In this case it's about the related tooling that broke. Until JBIDE fixes
> this, users will end up with the wrong annotations in their code.
>
> IMHO, I'm not saying no we can't change things like this, but if we do
> change them and there are known downstream impacts for tools that support
> DS we should let those tools know what we are doing before we make the
> change.
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > 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 <rm...@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" <gu...@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 <co...@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"
> > > <jo...@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
> > > <rm...@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"
> > > <co...@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 <pm...@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
> > > <co...@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 <ge...@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
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
Mark,
In this case it's about the related tooling that broke. Until JBIDE fixes
this, users will end up with the wrong annotations in their code.
IMHO, I'm not saying no we can't change things like this, but if we do
change them and there are known downstream impacts for tools that support
DS we should let those tools know what we are doing before we make the
change.
John
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> 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 <rm...@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" <gu...@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 <co...@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"
> > <jo...@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
> > <rm...@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"
> > <co...@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 <pm...@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
> > <co...@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 <ge...@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
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
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 <rm...@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" <gu...@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 <co...@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"
> <jo...@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
> <rm...@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"
> <co...@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 <pm...@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
> <co...@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 <ge...@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
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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" <gu...@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 <co...@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" <jo...@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 <rm...@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" <co...@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 <pm...@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 <co...@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 <ge...@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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
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 <co...@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" <jo...@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 <rm...@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" <co...@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 <pm...@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 <co...@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 <ge...@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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Cody Lerum <co...@gmail.com>.
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 <jo...@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" <jo...@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 <rm...@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" <co...@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 <pm...@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 <co...@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 <ge...@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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> +1 after first tlp release to be exact
> Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <jo...@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 <rm...@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" <co...@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 <pm...@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 <co...@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 <ge...@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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+1 after first tlp release to be exact
Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <jo...@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 <rm...@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" <co...@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 <pm...@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 <co...@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 <ge...@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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@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" <co...@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 <pm...@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 <co...@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 <ge...@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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@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" <co...@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 <pm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > >
> > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for dropping
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <co...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >> drop em.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@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 <ge...@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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@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" <co...@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 <pm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> >
> > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for dropping
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <co...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > >> drop em.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@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 <ge...@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
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Cody Lerum <co...@gmail.com>.
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 <pm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> +1 to drop, I hate them.
>
> On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for dropping
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <co...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> drop em.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@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 <ge...@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
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
+1 to drop, I hate them.
On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de> wrote:
> +1 for dropping
>
>
> 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <co...@gmail.com>
>
>> drop em.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@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 <ge...@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