I moved the XML config to 0.5 I resolver DS-105 since no additional comments on it and general consensus was that it was needed for backwards compatibility.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:40 AM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com>wrote: > Ok. How about the open catch issues? Do you feel any of those are needed > for 0.4? > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The last time I asked about it the responses seemed lukewarm, so I >> figured it wasn't something people really cared about. We could certainly >> add it in post 0.4 if there really is a desire for it. >> — >> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:23 AM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Jason, >> > Does that mean we are no longer bringing XML config to DeltaSpike, even >> > though it was already voted in? >> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> Wrt xml-config, I'll be working on configuring cdi via osgi blueprint, >> >> over in the Aries project. If we want to port over the seam config >> stuff, >> >> we can certainly do that too. >> >> — >> >> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > @Gerhard: the point about proxy was i thought it was not straight >> forward >> >> > since some people will not want to bring any additional lib for it >> >> (because >> >> > they use only interfaces and proxy libs can conflcts). Wonder if >> handling >> >> > it with a dep optional couldn't do the trick too. >> >> > *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* >> >> > 2013/3/26 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >> >> >> @ romain: >> >> >> imo it doesn't make sense to remove something (and add it later on >> >> again), >> >> >> if it's just a matter of few hours (to do it immediately). >> >> >> anybody is welcome to work on DS-333. >> >> >> >> >> >> @ DS-288 >> >> >> it's almost done and as i mentioned earlier i'll finish it once >> DS-289 >> >> is >> >> >> done. >> >> >> (yes we need it for 0.4) >> >> >> >> >> >> @ xml-config >> >> >> afair we had an agreement already, but nobody worked on it. >> >> >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/3/26 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I think leaving proxy support to full interface only for now makes >> >> sense, >> >> >> > we can enrich this further in another release. How about we >> close 113 >> >> >> as a >> >> >> > reduced scope and open a new issue for remaining items? I see you >> >> >> already >> >> >> > did some Gerhard, but we still have abstract classes as a case as >> >> well. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Gerhard, can you also comment on 288? Do we need this in 0.4 or >> can it >> >> >> > wait? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Romain, I didn't quite get you. Are you saying you're on hold on >> this >> >> >> one >> >> >> > (dependent on something?). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Does anyone believe we need Seam XML Config in 0.4? (DS-269 to >> 272). >> >> I'd >> >> >> > prefer to move it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For DS-105, it looks like consensus is to keep it since it's >> needed >> >> for >> >> >> > older Weld versions. If so can we close as will not fix? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Jason P - Can you look at DS-132/134? Do we need these? There are >> >> other >> >> >> > catch like issues out there. Are they needed? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Mark S - You have 12 issues assigned to you :/ >> >> >> > >> >> >> > BTW I created a new filter - only open issues [1] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > John >> >> >> > >> >> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323789 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Hi >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > DS-60: we are a bunch o wait after it >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > DS-113: think we can push partial bean to another release and >> keep >> >> >> > > interface handling for this iteration (well if you import asm >> part >> >> >> right >> >> >> > > now it can work but then the question will be which shade >> version? a >> >> >> > proxy >> >> >> > > as in cxf?....) >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > other are not blocker IMO >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > *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* >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 2013/3/25 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > hi john, >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > @ examples: >> >> >> > > > we haven't discussed what our goal is here >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > @ DS-60 >> >> >> > > > imo we should do it for 0.5 (and release 0.5 >short< after >> 0.4) >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > @ DS-113 >> >> >> > > > we have to change the proxy-lib and move it to an own module >> >> >> > > > (i'll create the module today) >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > @ DS-263 >> >> >> > > > not needed, but nice to have -> +1 >> >> >> > > > (you can have a look at the setup we used in codi for it to >> know >> >> what >> >> >> > you >> >> >> > > > need) >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > @ DS-278 >> >> >> > > > i re-opened it because we should find a better approach imo. >> >> >> > > > however, it isn't a real blocker >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > regards, >> >> >> > > > gerhard >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > 2013/3/25 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > All, >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Based on the flurry of threads, I wanted to help get things >> >> started >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > > > move >> >> >> > > > > towards a 0.4 release. I created the filter at [1] to show >> our >> >> >> > current >> >> >> > > > > progress. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > We currently have 50 issues fixed in 0.4, with 27 >> unresolved for >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > > > release. Some of these issues stick out, with me thinking >> that >> >> >> we've >> >> >> > > > > actually completed them but perhaps need some finalization >> >> (note: >> >> >> > I'll >> >> >> > > > use >> >> >> > > > > the abbreviation DS for the DELTASPIKE key in JIRA which is >> >> TL;DR) >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > DS-306 - I see examples. Do we need more? >> >> >> > > > > DS-60 - I believe we have started integrating CDI Query. >> Should >> >> >> this >> >> >> > > > have >> >> >> > > > > spawned child tasks? >> >> >> > > > > DS-113 - Gerhard took the reigns on this one and apparently >> it >> >> >> works >> >> >> > > just >> >> >> > > > > like the Seam3 version. Can this be closed? >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Some low hanging fruit: >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > DS-263 - I was actually looking for something like this as >> well. >> >> >> > I've >> >> >> > > > been >> >> >> > > > > playing with JBoss modules a lot and think having a binary >> >> release >> >> >> > > would >> >> >> > > > > help add DS as a JBoss Module. If this isn't complete, do >> we >> >> need >> >> >> it >> >> >> > > in >> >> >> > > > > 0.4? >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > DS-278 - If not done, seems easy enough to add. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > DS-288 - Seems like another needed feature, but wasn't too >> >> >> difficult >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > > > > either CODI or Seam3. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > DS-289 - Ironically, this one isn't even scheduled for 0.4 >> but >> >> is a >> >> >> > > > blocker >> >> >> > > > > for the release. I'll update it as such. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > If you have something in the list below that shouldn't be >> (e.g. >> >> >> it's >> >> >> > > not >> >> >> > > > > needed for 0.4) we should get it rescheduled. Since >> previously >> >> >> only >> >> >> > > 289 >> >> >> > > > > was declared needed for 0.4 we should be looking at >> everything >> >> >> else. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > John >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323788 >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
