You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2014/08/25 18:43:21 UTC
[RESULT] [VOTE] XBean 4.0
Counting votes it seems it passed:
+1s: Alan D Cabrera, David Blevins, Romain Manni-Bucau
+0: Jean-Baptiste Onofré, Mark Struberg
-1: no
thank you all for your votes.
PS: ones having identified some issues would be welcomed to at least
open a jira explaining it and potentially proposing a fix if you
already have an idea to not forget them for 4.1
I'll publish binaries tonight.
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-08-25 17:08 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> @David: it was filtering java.lang.Object since it was created, java.*
> filter just extend this logic since it will never works (excepted if
> you bring java.* in your app which is unlikely. That said method is
> protected to be able to override it.
>
>
> In all case (I think I mentionned it several times) 4.x x > 0 will
> make it more usable (OSGi, this if you think it is bad etc...). Main
> purpose was to get a first release fixing linking time and respecting
> the constructor contract
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2014-08-25 16:12 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>:
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The main changes are:
>> [...]
>>> skip java.* classes since we'll not get their bytecode for sure
>>> (protected method if needed)
>>
>> I'm not a fan of hard coding filtering inside the AnnotationFinder itself, so +1 under the condition that we remain open to revising this in a future release.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] XBean 4.0
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PS: ones having identified some issues would be welcomed to at least
> open a jira explaining it and potentially proposing a fix if you
> already have an idea to not forget them for 4.1
Nicely phrased. And +1 on the welcome nudges.
-David
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] XBean 4.0
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
And Thank You for the vote!!
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Counting votes it seems it passed:
>
> +1s: Alan D Cabrera, David Blevins, Romain Manni-Bucau
> +0: Jean-Baptiste Onofré, Mark Struberg
> -1: no
>
> thank you all for your votes.
>
> PS: ones having identified some issues would be welcomed to at least
> open a jira explaining it and potentially proposing a fix if you
> already have an idea to not forget them for 4.1
>
> I'll publish binaries tonight.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2014-08-25 17:08 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>> @David: it was filtering java.lang.Object since it was created, java.*
>> filter just extend this logic since it will never works (excepted if
>> you bring java.* in your app which is unlikely. That said method is
>> protected to be able to override it.
>>
>>
>> In all case (I think I mentionned it several times) 4.x x > 0 will
>> make it more usable (OSGi, this if you think it is bad etc...). Main
>> purpose was to get a first release fixing linking time and respecting
>> the constructor contract
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-25 16:12 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>:
>>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The main changes are:
>>> [...]
>>>> skip java.* classes since we'll not get their bytecode for sure
>>>> (protected method if needed)
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan of hard coding filtering inside the AnnotationFinder itself, so +1 under the condition that we remain open to revising this in a future release.
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>