Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to @Typed()
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com>wrote: > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward. > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <john.d.am...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking integrations. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek < > > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp). > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.) > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
