hi adrian, yes, i also know several projects which use codi + ds 0.3 (in production) and they are happy with it. (most of them move to ds feature by feature without issues.)
regards, gerhard 2013/3/24 Adrian Gonzalez <adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr> > Hello, > > I'm a DS user (and I'm not the only one I think). > > Just to let you know how I use it (if this can help someone) : DS 0.3 with > a mix of CODI and 2/3 classes from Seam [1]. > > Quite happy for now (I'm using DS Exception handling - with custom REST > and JSF extensions from Seam 3, Config). > > > From CODI, I use WindowScoped, ConversationScoped and ViewAccessScoped. > > From Seam 3, I use a modified version JSF ExceptionHandling (to integrate > to DS Exception Handling), UIInputContainer (completely optional, but I > like it), and REST Exception Handling. > Only JSF ExceptionHandling is really mandatory IMO. > > For the rest of my application CMT EJB Stateless (tx) and > @PersistenceContext (no extended). > > I'll remove CODI when CODI scopes are ported to DS which should be DS 0.4 > if I'm correct. > > > Best regards, > > [1] Most notably : > https://github.com/seam/faces/tree/develop/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss/seam/faces/exception > > > ________________________________ > De : Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > À : deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org > Envoyé le : Dimanche 24 mars 2013 19h33 > Objet : Re: DISCUSS DeltaSpike-324 > > I did a JUG this week with a part on DS and was the main question asked > with those words "when will it be usable?"...kind of sad. Releasing even in > alpha/beta is better IMO. > Le 24 mars 2013 19:29, "Jason Porter" <lightguard...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > +1 glad I'm not the only one asking for a roadmap now. > > — > > Sent from Mailbox for iPhone > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Do we already have a roadmap? I think we should define one by iteration > > > (+handle a backlog if we want). > > > I can help on cdi query part if needed (jsf is still a bit too new for > > me). > > > Le 24 mars 2013 18:49, "Gerhard Petracek" <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > a > > > écrit : > > >> hi john, > > >> > > >> we can't keep it currently (i'm also unhappy about it), because if > only > > 2-3 > > >> people help on a >regular< basis [1], you have to wait until they have > > >> time. > > >> it isn't only about unassigned issues. e.g. not that many help with > > writing > > >> tests and examples, writing/reviewing javadoc and documentation. > > >> > > >> even the graduation process takes (very) long. > > >> that might be a big blocker for some users. > > >> at least codi had several users way before v1 (and for sure even more > > after > > >> v1). > > >> however, we would lose more users, if we release v1 which isn't ready. > > >> > > >> >imo< our goal for v1 should be >at least< everything (which we know > > >> already) we need for improving the java-ee web-profile as well as a > > stable > > >> api and spi. > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> gerhard > > >> > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-deltaspike/contributors > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2013/3/24 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> > > >> > I get you and think we agree behund words. My main issue is our 0.4 > is > > >> not > > >> > ready to be released and still doesnt contain what users are waiting > > >> for... > > >> > > > >> > When i spoke about > 1.0 just understand when last release answer > > basic > > >> > needs > > >> > Le 24 mars 2013 16:49, "John D. Ament" <john.d.am...@gmail.com> a > > écrit > > >> : > > >> > > > >> > > Romain, > > >> > > > > >> > > I'm not sure what to tell you. One of our founding statements was > > >> > release > > >> > > early and often. I'm not sure why we haven't stuck to that. > > >> > Personally, I > > >> > > think we have failed to do that. We probably have too many > features > > >> in a > > >> > > single release/ not much release planning/attempt to release > > everything > > >> > as > > >> > > one big release rather than more modular in nature. Those are > just > > >> > > thoughts. > > >> > > > > >> > > As I already stated, I don't want this in 0.4. But I don't think > > it's > > >> > > appropriate to stick this in after 1.0, who knows when that will > > be. I > > >> > > would love to see this in 0.5, already have prototypes working. > My > > >> > biggest > > >> > > issue, as I was trying to raise in the other thread, is that when > > >> people > > >> > > look at the issue list out there, generally the candidates to work > > on > > >> are > > >> > > the unassigned issues. If 80% of what we have out there is > > assigned, > > >> > then > > >> > > it's assumed someone's work on it. If it's assigned to someone > and > > >> > they're > > >> > > not working on it, that's probably an issue that needs to be > > addressed. > > >> > As > > >> > > far as I can tell, of the 10 unassigned issues out there, none of > > them > > >> > are > > >> > > comprehensible enough (other than the one I already worked on) to > be > > >> > worked > > >> > > through. So I'm not sure, maybe it's an issue of perception, but > I > > >> don't > > >> > > think we have a large pile of open work for future releases. > > >> > > > > >> > > John > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Sure but we cant start everything, finishing nothing...our rare > > >> > releases > > >> > > > are already a pain for users. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We need jsf + if possible cdi query for 0.4 IMO then i agree > rest > > >> > helpers > > >> > > > are a must have (some tools around jaxrs client part can be > great) > > >> > etc... > > >> > > > Le 24 mars 2013 16:13, "John D. Ament" <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > a > > >> > écrit > > >> > > : > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Romain, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > My only issue with this is that I don't think we've mapped out > > what > > >> > the > > >> > > > > common use cases are (at least based on the email I sent out). > > If > > >> > > we're > > >> > > > > favoring JSF, we're neglecting the growing population of REST > > APIs > > >> > for > > >> > > > rich > > >> > > > > javascript clients (from UI). > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > > > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > yes but JMS is clearly not the most used > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > can't we push it for the > 1.0? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > users really wait the first 1.0 to use DS and adding JMS now > > >> simply > > >> > > > looks > > >> > > > > > like forgetting more common use cases > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > > >> > > > > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > > >> > > > > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > > >> > > > > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > > >> > > > > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > > >> > > > > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2013/3/23 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > hi @ all, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > imo it's more a basic question. > > >> > > > > > > if we do it for jms 2, we also have to (/should) do it for > > >> other > > >> > > > > > > specifications like bv 1.1 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > regards, > > >> > > > > > > gerhard > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2013/3/21 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ill rephrase a bit. I m rather -0 about it and -1 since > a > > lot > > >> > of > > >> > > > > others > > >> > > > > > > > stuff are needed before. > > >> > > > > > > > Le 21 mars 2013 22:50, "Arne Limburg" < > > >> > > > arne.limb...@openknowledge.de > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > écrit : > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > We should find out if one can simply use a JMS 2.0 > > >> > > implementation > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > put > > >> > > > > > > > > it into an deployment. If that will be possible, we > > would > > >> not > > >> > > > need > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > implement it. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > >> > > > > > > > > Arne > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Am 21.03.13 22:34 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter < > > >> > > > strub...@yahoo.de > > >> > > > > >: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >I tend to lean towards +1 simply because EE-7 > > containers > > >> > will > > >> > > > take > > >> > > > > > > > > >another year (or 2) to become used in projects. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >I just think we should first close a few tasks before > > we > > >> > open > > >> > > > new > > >> > > > > > > ones. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >LieGrue, > > >> > > > > > > > > >strub > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >> > > > > > > > > >> From: John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Cc: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:09 PM > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: DISCUSS DeltaSpike-324 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Romain, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Generally, I'm mixed about these. However I think > > >> there's > > >> > > > some > > >> > > > > > > pretty > > >> > > > > > > > > >> good > > >> > > > > > > > > >> benefits. For an application developer, maybe none > > of > > >> the > > >> > > > other > > >> > > > > > > JMS 2 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> features are useful to you (the bulk of the feature > > went > > >> > > into > > >> > > > > CDI > > >> > > > > > > > > >>support, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> app server integration, and documentation clean > up). > > >> You > > >> > > > don't > > >> > > > > > want > > >> > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > >> move off of TomEE 1.5.x to TomEE Y (which could > > support > > >> > Java > > >> > > > EE > > >> > > > > 7 > > >> > > > > > > Web > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Profile) due to downtime in your application. > > There's > > >> > also > > >> > > > lead > > >> > > > > > > time > > >> > > > > > > > > >> required to impelement JMS 2/Java EE 7 features in > > your > > >> > > > > > application > > >> > > > > > > > > >>server, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> but perhaps you don't want to or need to wait for > the > > >> > whole > > >> > > > > thing. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> This solution would be DS oriented, I believe > > requires > > >> > > > > > > > TransactionScoped > > >> > > > > > > > > >> (which could require the transaction classes be > moved > > >> away > > >> > > > from > > >> > > > > > > > > >> persistence) to operate properly. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> There's also the case of using DeltaSpike as your > > >> CDI-JMS > > >> > > > > > > > > >>implementation if > > >> > > > > > > > > >> you were a JMS implementer. I haven't reached out > to > > >> > > > > communities > > >> > > > > > > such > > >> > > > > > > > > >>as > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Apache ActiveMQ or HornetQ to see input here; I > know > > the > > >> > > > current > > >> > > > > > > > > >>GlassFish > > >> > > > > > > > > >> implementation calls their lower level directly > (and > > not > > >> > by > > >> > > > > > wrapping > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > >> JMS APIs). > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> John > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Romain > Manni-Bucau > > >> > > > > > > > > >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Hi > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> i'm globally -1 for redoing something which will > > exist > > >> > > > > somewhere > > >> > > > > > > > else > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> (basically if somebody wants JavaEE just let him > > use > > >> > > JavaEE, > > >> > > > > CDI > > >> > > > > > > > > >> doesn't > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> need the full stack IMO). Was my point for JPA, > > more > > >> > again > > >> > > > on > > >> > > > > > JMS. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> It is great to add feature before the specs not > > once > > >> it > > >> > is > > >> > > > (or > > >> > > > > > > > almost) > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> done. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Maybe i didnt fully get what you want to do so > > maybe > > >> > share > > >> > > > > some > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>pastebin to > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> be sure we speak about the same stuff. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> *Romain Manni-Bucau* > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau < > > >> https://twitter.com/rmannibucau > > >> > >* > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> *LinkedIn: ** > > http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> 2013/3/21 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > All, > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > I'd like to open the floor to discussion for > > porting > > >> > > JMS 2 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> features to > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > DeltaSpike, specifically the features that > added > > >> some > > >> > > CDI > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>capabilities > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > JMS. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > Details of my rough proposal are here: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-324 > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > Importing these features start to deprecate > > >> > > functionality > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > > > > Seam > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>JMS > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > (ideal). These features would give access to > an > > API > > >> > > very > > >> > > > > > > similar > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>to > > >> > > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > JMS2 API around CDI injection. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > Some limitations: > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > - This would not be a JMS implementation, > simply > > an > > >> > > > inspired > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>interface > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> for > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > use in Java EE 6/JMS 1.x that leveraged CDI > > >> injection > > >> > > > based > > >> > > > > on > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > >> rules > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > for CDI injection of these interfaces. We > would > > >> bring > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > very > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>similar > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > annotations that supported the injection of the > > >> three > > >> > > > target > > >> > > > > > > > types. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > - Cannot use the exact interface, since the > > >> interface > > >> > > > > > implements > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > AutoCloseable which is a Java SE 7 interface. > > >> > > DeltaSpike > > >> > > > > uses > > >> > > > > > > > Java > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>SE > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 6 > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > for a compiler. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > - Internally these would have to use the > current > > JMS > > >> > > > > > interfaces > > >> > > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > connection, session. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > - Testing would be feasible but require a full > > Java > > >> EE > > >> > > > > > container > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>(e.g. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> no > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > testing in Weld/OWB directly) that supported > > >> > deployment > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > > > > >> destinations > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> at > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > runtime. Since this doesn't touch MDBs we can > > >> > manually > > >> > > > read > > >> > > > > > > from > > >> > > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > destination. > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > John > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> >
