You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltaspike.apache.org by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> on 2017/06/03 14:07:06 UTC
Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Hey guys
I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as feature goes,
but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work
DeltaSpike 2.0:
- Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
- Remove older components that are not needed any more
- See if there's new features we can add
Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or we move
master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in master.
John
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
> What about global alternatives? Could we remove them, too?
I fear not.
The way to achieve global alternatives in weld is by putting @Priority on any @Alternative.
But then it's a priory enabled. One would have to explicitly veto that bean.
We could probably do something with out ConfigExtension. We need to investigate further.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 04.06.2017 um 13:04 schrieb Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>:
>
> Yep!
> What about global alternatives? Could we remove them, too?
>
> 2017-06-03 21:32 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>
>> I agree with Thomas. While always minimal, if we can trim our internal
>> libraries and make them a bit more user friendly, it will simplify how
>> users leverage our modules (e.g. maybe we don't have a core module
>> anymore). This means better module isolation. If Mark brings config to
>> Geronimo via MP then we could even provide the legacy DeltaSpike Config as
>> a compatibility layer for those using it.
>>
>> I'm also confused about the comment around "micro-profile" as well as "cdi2
>> as a new baseline once its really useful"
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:58 PM Thomas Andraschko <
>> andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO we should try to do a cut in 2.0 and do a big cleanup (1.x should be
>> in
>>> maintenance to support < JavaEE8):
>>> - Drop bval module and the servlet module. AFAIR the injection support is
>>> already in JavaEE 8.
>>> - We can also try to remove some core APIs (BeanManagerProvider)
>>> - Cleanup the JSF Module (injection support is also available in JavaEE8)
>>> - Cleanup Java8 hacks
>>>
>>> What parts to you mean which are required for a microprofile?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-06-03 17:42 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>> imo there's not a lot we should drop, because users might need those
>>> parts
>>>> e.g. for applications based on the micro-profile.
>>>> maybe it's just a matter of documenting an useful combination of ee8 +
>> ds
>>>> and/or to highlight which parts of ds are covered by ee8.
>>>>
>>>> @ds2:
>>>> maybe we should mainly take the chance to improve the consistency (=
>> few
>>>> but breaking api-changes).
>>>> (+ only use cdi2,... as a new baseline once it's really useful.)
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-06-03 16:35 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>>> andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
>>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> basically +1
>>>>> we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are
>>>>> available in JavaEE8)
>>>>> BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are not
>>>> ready.
>>>>> So IMO it's not necessary now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data Module
>>>> e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-06-03 16:21 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> @romain: +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
>>>> écrit
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey guys
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as
>>>> feature
>>>>>>> goes,
>>>>>>>> but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up
>> work
>>>>>>>> DeltaSpike 2.0:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
>>>>>>>> - Remove older components that are not needed any more
>>>>>>>> - See if there's new features we can add
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or
>> we
>>>> move
>>>>>>>> master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in
>>> master.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>.
@thomas: +1
@micro-profile:
e.g. we should keep @Transactional
(however, we should align the api with the data-module)
@core:
if we really use cdi2 as the new baseline, we can drop the builders as well
as the literals for std. annotations.
@test-control:
we should drop the mock-support (and document the manual approach - as
discussed recently).
+ we could move to junit-rules.
@servlet-module:
we can drop most parts of the injection-support.
regards,
gerhard
2017-06-04 13:04 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>:
> Yep!
> What about global alternatives? Could we remove them, too?
>
> 2017-06-03 21:32 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>
> > I agree with Thomas. While always minimal, if we can trim our internal
> > libraries and make them a bit more user friendly, it will simplify how
> > users leverage our modules (e.g. maybe we don't have a core module
> > anymore). This means better module isolation. If Mark brings config to
> > Geronimo via MP then we could even provide the legacy DeltaSpike Config
> as
> > a compatibility layer for those using it.
> >
> > I'm also confused about the comment around "micro-profile" as well as
> "cdi2
> > as a new baseline once its really useful"
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:58 PM Thomas Andraschko <
> > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > IMO we should try to do a cut in 2.0 and do a big cleanup (1.x should
> be
> > in
> > > maintenance to support < JavaEE8):
> > > - Drop bval module and the servlet module. AFAIR the injection support
> is
> > > already in JavaEE 8.
> > > - We can also try to remove some core APIs (BeanManagerProvider)
> > > - Cleanup the JSF Module (injection support is also available in
> JavaEE8)
> > > - Cleanup Java8 hacks
> > >
> > > What parts to you mean which are required for a microprofile?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-06-03 17:42 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > imo there's not a lot we should drop, because users might need those
> > > parts
> > > > e.g. for applications based on the micro-profile.
> > > > maybe it's just a matter of documenting an useful combination of ee8
> +
> > ds
> > > > and/or to highlight which parts of ds are covered by ee8.
> > > >
> > > > @ds2:
> > > > maybe we should mainly take the chance to improve the consistency (=
> > few
> > > > but breaking api-changes).
> > > > (+ only use cdi2,... as a new baseline once it's really useful.)
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > gerhard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-03 16:35 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> > > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > basically +1
> > > > > we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are
> > > > > available in JavaEE8)
> > > > > BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are
> not
> > > > ready.
> > > > > So IMO it's not necessary now.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data
> Module
> > > > e.g.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-06-03 16:21 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gpetracek@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > @romain: +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > gerhard
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>
> a
> > > > écrit
> > > > > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as
> > > > feature
> > > > > > > goes,
> > > > > > > > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up
> > work
> > > > > > > > DeltaSpike 2.0:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
> > > > > > > > - Remove older components that are not needed any more
> > > > > > > > - See if there's new features we can add
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or
> > we
> > > > move
> > > > > > > > master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in
> > > master.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>.
Yep!
What about global alternatives? Could we remove them, too?
2017-06-03 21:32 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> I agree with Thomas. While always minimal, if we can trim our internal
> libraries and make them a bit more user friendly, it will simplify how
> users leverage our modules (e.g. maybe we don't have a core module
> anymore). This means better module isolation. If Mark brings config to
> Geronimo via MP then we could even provide the legacy DeltaSpike Config as
> a compatibility layer for those using it.
>
> I'm also confused about the comment around "micro-profile" as well as "cdi2
> as a new baseline once its really useful"
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:58 PM Thomas Andraschko <
> andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > IMO we should try to do a cut in 2.0 and do a big cleanup (1.x should be
> in
> > maintenance to support < JavaEE8):
> > - Drop bval module and the servlet module. AFAIR the injection support is
> > already in JavaEE 8.
> > - We can also try to remove some core APIs (BeanManagerProvider)
> > - Cleanup the JSF Module (injection support is also available in JavaEE8)
> > - Cleanup Java8 hacks
> >
> > What parts to you mean which are required for a microprofile?
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-06-03 17:42 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > imo there's not a lot we should drop, because users might need those
> > parts
> > > e.g. for applications based on the micro-profile.
> > > maybe it's just a matter of documenting an useful combination of ee8 +
> ds
> > > and/or to highlight which parts of ds are covered by ee8.
> > >
> > > @ds2:
> > > maybe we should mainly take the chance to improve the consistency (=
> few
> > > but breaking api-changes).
> > > (+ only use cdi2,... as a new baseline once it's really useful.)
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > gerhard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-06-03 16:35 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > basically +1
> > > > we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are
> > > > available in JavaEE8)
> > > > BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are not
> > > ready.
> > > > So IMO it's not necessary now.
> > > >
> > > > I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data Module
> > > e.g.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-03 16:21 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > @romain: +1
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > gerhard
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
> > > écrit
> > > > :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as
> > > feature
> > > > > > goes,
> > > > > > > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up
> work
> > > > > > > DeltaSpike 2.0:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
> > > > > > > - Remove older components that are not needed any more
> > > > > > > - See if there's new features we can add
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or
> we
> > > move
> > > > > > > master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in
> > master.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I agree with Thomas. While always minimal, if we can trim our internal
libraries and make them a bit more user friendly, it will simplify how
users leverage our modules (e.g. maybe we don't have a core module
anymore). This means better module isolation. If Mark brings config to
Geronimo via MP then we could even provide the legacy DeltaSpike Config as
a compatibility layer for those using it.
I'm also confused about the comment around "micro-profile" as well as "cdi2
as a new baseline once its really useful"
John
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:58 PM Thomas Andraschko <
andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO we should try to do a cut in 2.0 and do a big cleanup (1.x should be in
> maintenance to support < JavaEE8):
> - Drop bval module and the servlet module. AFAIR the injection support is
> already in JavaEE 8.
> - We can also try to remove some core APIs (BeanManagerProvider)
> - Cleanup the JSF Module (injection support is also available in JavaEE8)
> - Cleanup Java8 hacks
>
> What parts to you mean which are required for a microprofile?
>
>
>
> 2017-06-03 17:42 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
>
> > imo there's not a lot we should drop, because users might need those
> parts
> > e.g. for applications based on the micro-profile.
> > maybe it's just a matter of documenting an useful combination of ee8 + ds
> > and/or to highlight which parts of ds are covered by ee8.
> >
> > @ds2:
> > maybe we should mainly take the chance to improve the consistency (= few
> > but breaking api-changes).
> > (+ only use cdi2,... as a new baseline once it's really useful.)
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-06-03 16:35 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > basically +1
> > > we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are
> > > available in JavaEE8)
> > > BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are not
> > ready.
> > > So IMO it's not necessary now.
> > >
> > > I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data Module
> > e.g.
> > >
> > > 2017-06-03 16:21 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > @romain: +1
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > gerhard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as
> > feature
> > > > > goes,
> > > > > > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work
> > > > > > DeltaSpike 2.0:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
> > > > > > - Remove older components that are not needed any more
> > > > > > - See if there's new features we can add
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or we
> > move
> > > > > > master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in
> master.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>.
IMO we should try to do a cut in 2.0 and do a big cleanup (1.x should be in
maintenance to support < JavaEE8):
- Drop bval module and the servlet module. AFAIR the injection support is
already in JavaEE 8.
- We can also try to remove some core APIs (BeanManagerProvider)
- Cleanup the JSF Module (injection support is also available in JavaEE8)
- Cleanup Java8 hacks
What parts to you mean which are required for a microprofile?
2017-06-03 17:42 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
> imo there's not a lot we should drop, because users might need those parts
> e.g. for applications based on the micro-profile.
> maybe it's just a matter of documenting an useful combination of ee8 + ds
> and/or to highlight which parts of ds are covered by ee8.
>
> @ds2:
> maybe we should mainly take the chance to improve the consistency (= few
> but breaking api-changes).
> (+ only use cdi2,... as a new baseline once it's really useful.)
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2017-06-03 16:35 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > basically +1
> > we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are
> > available in JavaEE8)
> > BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are not
> ready.
> > So IMO it's not necessary now.
> >
> > I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data Module
> e.g.
> >
> > 2017-06-03 16:21 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > @romain: +1
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > gerhard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
> > > >
> > > > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
> écrit
> > :
> > > >
> > > > > Hey guys
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as
> feature
> > > > goes,
> > > > > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work
> > > > > DeltaSpike 2.0:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
> > > > > - Remove older components that are not needed any more
> > > > > - See if there's new features we can add
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or we
> move
> > > > > master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in master.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>.
imo there's not a lot we should drop, because users might need those parts
e.g. for applications based on the micro-profile.
maybe it's just a matter of documenting an useful combination of ee8 + ds
and/or to highlight which parts of ds are covered by ee8.
@ds2:
maybe we should mainly take the chance to improve the consistency (= few
but breaking api-changes).
(+ only use cdi2,... as a new baseline once it's really useful.)
regards,
gerhard
2017-06-03 16:35 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>:
> basically +1
> we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are
> available in JavaEE8)
> BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are not ready.
> So IMO it's not necessary now.
>
> I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data Module e.g.
>
> 2017-06-03 16:21 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
>
> > @romain: +1
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
> > >
> > > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit
> :
> > >
> > > > Hey guys
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as feature
> > > goes,
> > > > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work
> > > > DeltaSpike 2.0:
> > > >
> > > > - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
> > > > - Remove older components that are not needed any more
> > > > - See if there's new features we can add
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or we move
> > > > master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in master.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>.
basically +1
we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are
available in JavaEE8)
BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are not ready.
So IMO it's not necessary now.
I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data Module e.g.
2017-06-03 16:21 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>:
> @romain: +1
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
> >
> > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > > Hey guys
> > >
> > > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as feature
> > goes,
> > > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work
> > > DeltaSpike 2.0:
> > >
> > > - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
> > > - Remove older components that are not needed any more
> > > - See if there's new features we can add
> > >
> > > Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or we move
> > > master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in master.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> >
>
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>.
@romain: +1
regards,
gerhard
2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> Hi
>
> Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
>
> Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> > Hey guys
> >
> > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as feature
> goes,
> > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work
> > DeltaSpike 2.0:
> >
> > - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
> > - Remove older components that are not needed any more
> > - See if there's new features we can add
> >
> > Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or we move
> > master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in master.
> >
> > John
> >
>
Re: Creating a branch for DeltaSpike 2.0? Or 1.x maintenance?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1
Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Hey guys
>
> I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as feature goes,
> but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work
> DeltaSpike 2.0:
>
> - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8
> - Remove older components that are not needed any more
> - See if there's new features we can add
>
> Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or we move
> master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in master.
>
> John
>