You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltaspike.apache.org by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com> on 2014/06/29 00:03:19 UTC
[DISCUSS] supporting different spec versions
hi @ all,
as we have seen e.g. as7 logs exceptions during the startup due to our
optional classes (needed for jsf 2.2+).
since we really need at least some of them (otherwise we would break jsf
2.2+ applications), we said that users should ignore those log entries
(there is no impact later on).
however, there are other servers which don't ignore it and the deployment
fails.
we have different options here - e.g.:
#1 special modules once they are needed
#2 one branch per java ee version
#3 keep it as it is (and ignore those servers)
regards,
gerhard
Re: [DISCUSS] supporting different spec versions
Posted by Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>.
#1
2014-06-30 23:32 GMT+02:00 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>:
> I think #1 is really the only way we can realistically continue forward. We
> should communicate though that those matrices which use earlier versions of
> the spec(s) probably will not receive as much attention, probably just bug
> fixes, unless we can refactor to a base for those modules and then add new
> things in base where appropriate.
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'd agree to #1. I was actually thinking recently about how to
> > re-implement core using CDI 1.1 features. I'll send out a separate
> > email RE that.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ok, so I'd say 1.
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-06-29 0:46 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> >:
> > >> no - i contacted esp. one server team months ago and they promised to
> > fix
> > >> it.
> > >> however, the latest release contains fixes for several issues i
> reported
> > >> except this one.
> > >> (and afaik there won't be any new ee6 release any time soon and an ee7
> > >> release might take some time as well.)
> > >>
> > >> since we might see similar issues with ee8+, we need a nice approach.
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >> gerhard
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2014-06-29 0:09 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> +0 for 1
> > >>> -1 for 2 (otherwise a single branch will be maintained in practise)
> > >>> are we able to "fix" them? for 3
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2014-06-29 0:03 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >>> > hi @ all,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > as we have seen e.g. as7 logs exceptions during the startup due to
> > our
> > >>> > optional classes (needed for jsf 2.2+).
> > >>> > since we really need at least some of them (otherwise we would
> break
> > jsf
> > >>> > 2.2+ applications), we said that users should ignore those log
> > entries
> > >>> > (there is no impact later on).
> > >>> > however, there are other servers which don't ignore it and the
> > deployment
> > >>> > fails.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > we have different options here - e.g.:
> > >>> > #1 special modules once they are needed
> > >>> > #2 one branch per java ee version
> > >>> > #3 keep it as it is (and ignore those servers)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > regards,
> > >>> > gerhard
> > >>>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Porter
> http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
>
Re: [DISCUSS] supporting different spec versions
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>.
I think #1 is really the only way we can realistically continue forward. We
should communicate though that those matrices which use earlier versions of
the spec(s) probably will not receive as much attention, probably just bug
fixes, unless we can refactor to a base for those modules and then add new
things in base where appropriate.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'd agree to #1. I was actually thinking recently about how to
> re-implement core using CDI 1.1 features. I'll send out a separate
> email RE that.
>
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ok, so I'd say 1.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >
> >
> > 2014-06-29 0:46 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
> >> no - i contacted esp. one server team months ago and they promised to
> fix
> >> it.
> >> however, the latest release contains fixes for several issues i reported
> >> except this one.
> >> (and afaik there won't be any new ee6 release any time soon and an ee7
> >> release might take some time as well.)
> >>
> >> since we might see similar issues with ee8+, we need a nice approach.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-06-29 0:09 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> +0 for 1
> >>> -1 for 2 (otherwise a single branch will be maintained in practise)
> >>> are we able to "fix" them? for 3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2014-06-29 0:03 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> >:
> >>> > hi @ all,
> >>> >
> >>> > as we have seen e.g. as7 logs exceptions during the startup due to
> our
> >>> > optional classes (needed for jsf 2.2+).
> >>> > since we really need at least some of them (otherwise we would break
> jsf
> >>> > 2.2+ applications), we said that users should ignore those log
> entries
> >>> > (there is no impact later on).
> >>> > however, there are other servers which don't ignore it and the
> deployment
> >>> > fails.
> >>> >
> >>> > we have different options here - e.g.:
> >>> > #1 special modules once they are needed
> >>> > #2 one branch per java ee version
> >>> > #3 keep it as it is (and ignore those servers)
> >>> >
> >>> > regards,
> >>> > gerhard
> >>>
>
--
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
Re: [DISCUSS] supporting different spec versions
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'd agree to #1. I was actually thinking recently about how to
re-implement core using CDI 1.1 features. I'll send out a separate
email RE that.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, so I'd say 1.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2014-06-29 0:46 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
>> no - i contacted esp. one server team months ago and they promised to fix
>> it.
>> however, the latest release contains fixes for several issues i reported
>> except this one.
>> (and afaik there won't be any new ee6 release any time soon and an ee7
>> release might take some time as well.)
>>
>> since we might see similar issues with ee8+, we need a nice approach.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-29 0:09 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> +0 for 1
>>> -1 for 2 (otherwise a single branch will be maintained in practise)
>>> are we able to "fix" them? for 3
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-06-29 0:03 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
>>> > hi @ all,
>>> >
>>> > as we have seen e.g. as7 logs exceptions during the startup due to our
>>> > optional classes (needed for jsf 2.2+).
>>> > since we really need at least some of them (otherwise we would break jsf
>>> > 2.2+ applications), we said that users should ignore those log entries
>>> > (there is no impact later on).
>>> > however, there are other servers which don't ignore it and the deployment
>>> > fails.
>>> >
>>> > we have different options here - e.g.:
>>> > #1 special modules once they are needed
>>> > #2 one branch per java ee version
>>> > #3 keep it as it is (and ignore those servers)
>>> >
>>> > regards,
>>> > gerhard
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] supporting different spec versions
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
ok, so I'd say 1.
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-06-29 0:46 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
> no - i contacted esp. one server team months ago and they promised to fix
> it.
> however, the latest release contains fixes for several issues i reported
> except this one.
> (and afaik there won't be any new ee6 release any time soon and an ee7
> release might take some time as well.)
>
> since we might see similar issues with ee8+, we need a nice approach.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2014-06-29 0:09 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>> +0 for 1
>> -1 for 2 (otherwise a single branch will be maintained in practise)
>> are we able to "fix" them? for 3
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-29 0:03 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
>> > hi @ all,
>> >
>> > as we have seen e.g. as7 logs exceptions during the startup due to our
>> > optional classes (needed for jsf 2.2+).
>> > since we really need at least some of them (otherwise we would break jsf
>> > 2.2+ applications), we said that users should ignore those log entries
>> > (there is no impact later on).
>> > however, there are other servers which don't ignore it and the deployment
>> > fails.
>> >
>> > we have different options here - e.g.:
>> > #1 special modules once they are needed
>> > #2 one branch per java ee version
>> > #3 keep it as it is (and ignore those servers)
>> >
>> > regards,
>> > gerhard
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] supporting different spec versions
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
no - i contacted esp. one server team months ago and they promised to fix
it.
however, the latest release contains fixes for several issues i reported
except this one.
(and afaik there won't be any new ee6 release any time soon and an ee7
release might take some time as well.)
since we might see similar issues with ee8+, we need a nice approach.
regards,
gerhard
2014-06-29 0:09 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> +0 for 1
> -1 for 2 (otherwise a single branch will be maintained in practise)
> are we able to "fix" them? for 3
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2014-06-29 0:03 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
> > hi @ all,
> >
> > as we have seen e.g. as7 logs exceptions during the startup due to our
> > optional classes (needed for jsf 2.2+).
> > since we really need at least some of them (otherwise we would break jsf
> > 2.2+ applications), we said that users should ignore those log entries
> > (there is no impact later on).
> > however, there are other servers which don't ignore it and the deployment
> > fails.
> >
> > we have different options here - e.g.:
> > #1 special modules once they are needed
> > #2 one branch per java ee version
> > #3 keep it as it is (and ignore those servers)
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
>
Re: [DISCUSS] supporting different spec versions
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+0 for 1
-1 for 2 (otherwise a single branch will be maintained in practise)
are we able to "fix" them? for 3
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-06-29 0:03 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
> hi @ all,
>
> as we have seen e.g. as7 logs exceptions during the startup due to our
> optional classes (needed for jsf 2.2+).
> since we really need at least some of them (otherwise we would break jsf
> 2.2+ applications), we said that users should ignore those log entries
> (there is no impact later on).
> however, there are other servers which don't ignore it and the deployment
> fails.
>
> we have different options here - e.g.:
> #1 special modules once they are needed
> #2 one branch per java ee version
> #3 keep it as it is (and ignore those servers)
>
> regards,
> gerhard