Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine IMHO
Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <cody.le...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss Tools -
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
>
> I don't know how many people if any are using that integration yet.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> >
> > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <christ...@kaltepoth.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for dropping
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <cody.le...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > >> drop em.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So
> this
> > >> is
> > >>> just superfluous.
> > >>>
> > >>> LieGrue,
> > >>> strub
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>> Cc:
> > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > >>>>
> > >>>> hi @ all,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for
> all
> > >>>> our
> > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just
> contains
> > >>>> annotations.
> > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the
> package
> > >>>> "annotation".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
> > >>>> package
> > >>>> and some don't)
> > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards,
> > >>>> gerhard
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to