Mark, i know - we are all full of work. I could of course help to refactor the ViewAccessScoped stuff but i have no idea how the new API should look like or whats exactly not that good in the current implementation. I have not that expierence from the CODI development like you and Gerhard.
Its not a angry critic! the current situation is only not that satifying for CODI users and DS feels really incomplete for JSF users. 2013/11/14 Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org> > if there wouldn't be a blocker (for ds), i would have done/suggested it > already. > -> -1 for a 1:1 import > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2013/11/14 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > Thomas, you are really welcome to help us with pushing those features. > > Others as well. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > > > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 23:51 > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? > > > > > > @Romain: > > > I understand all your concerns - really! > > > But from the view of CODI users, the current situation is quite > > > disappointing because the most required CODI features are still not > > > available since over a year > > > > > > IMO 1.0 should contain all important features. > > > I would be happy if we could import Gerhards port of the CODI features > > for > > > a 1.0 and enhance/reimplement the internal stuff later. > > > > > > Anyway, i think DS is currently already quite stable and a 1.0 is > really > > > required after this long time. > > > But, as gerhard already stated, a better documentation and examples is > > > really the minimum! > > > > > > I would also take the same version for each module. Its also easier to > > > maintain for the users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/11/13 Cody Lerum <cody.le...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> +1 for a 1.0 when docs are in order. > > >> > > >> As far as versioning I prefer the same ver for each module. I do > > dislike > > >> potentially having to release the exact same code multiple times just > > under > > >> a different version but I don't know what the alternatives would be. > If > > > you > > >> have modules with different version numbers it tends to make the > users > > pom > > >> very brittle. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > FWIW, I definitely prefer we do 1, and indicate clearly in docs and > > on > > > a > > >> > table on the website what the maturity of each module is. > > >> > > > >> > On 12 Nov 2013, at 14:34, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Pete, Gerhard > > >> > > > > >> > > The Problem here is that there are only 2 ways to handle the > > > situation: > > >> > > > > >> > > 1.) all modules share the same version but have different > > > maturity > > >> grades > > >> > > > > >> > > 2.) each module has it's very own version. A 0.x reflects > > > instability, > > >> > 1.x reflects maturity. But you know what happened with exactly this > > >> > approach in Seam3? The problem is that users do not know which > > version > > > of > > >> > ds-jsf-api works together with which version of ds-core-impl for > > > example. > > >> > It gets much more complicated with later modules. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thus I prefer 1.). > > >> > > > > >> > > LieGrue, > > >> > > strub > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> ________________________________ > > >> > >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > > >> > >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 14:35 > > >> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> +1 to Gerhard’s point (I am looking to try to find someone to > > > help > > >> with > > >> > docs, but the person I had in mind just left Red Hat :-(. Also +1 > to > > >> going > > >> > to 1.0 soon (i.e. making docs and stability a priority!). > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On 11 Nov 2013, at 23:09, Gerhard Petracek < > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >>> if we move to v1 soon, we need an useful versioning > > > strategy, better > > >> > docs > > >> > >>> and examples + the api and spi need to be stable for some > > > time (in > > >> the > > >> > best > > >> > >>> case until v2+). > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> regards, > > >> > >>> gerhard > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> 2013/11/11 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> how should that work? > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> Please note that we will have some not perfectly > > > finished modules > > >> very > > >> > >>>> often. Basically whenever we add a new module... > > >> > >>>> There is just no way to avoid this other than making > > > those modules > > >> own > > >> > >>>> releases. But this does not work out neither (as seen > > > on a few other > > >> > >>>> projects I don't like to name). > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> LieGrue, > > >> > >>>> strub > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>>> ________________________________ > > >> > >>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau > > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> > >>>>> To: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>; > > > dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > >> > >>>>> Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 20:54 > > >> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 > > > or 1.0? > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> Well if code is released it should be stable or > > > explicitely in > > >> > >>>> alpha/beta..maybe we should do subreleases for > > > unstables modules > > >> > >>>>> Le 11 nov. 2013 18:43, "Mark Struberg" > > > <strub...@yahoo.de> a > > >> écrit : > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> Oki folks, txs 4 the feedback, all! > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> I'd say we should create the > > > module-maturity-matrix.md first and > > >> > then > > >> > >>>> we might do the version bump. > > >> > >>>>>> Maybe something like green/blue/orange/red > > > for mature / ready but > > >> > still > > >> > >>>> needs a few features / ready but might change > > > it's api still / work > > >> in > > >> > >>>> progress > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> LieGrue, > > >> > >>>>>> strub > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>>>>>> From: Charles Moulliard > > > <ch0...@gmail.com> > > >> > >>>>>>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > >> > >>>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg > > > <strub...@yahoo.de> > > >> > >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:25 > > >> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release > > > version? 0.6 or 1.0? > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>> +1 to move to 1.0. We have done the same > > > thing with Apache Aries > > >> > moving > > >> > >>>>>>> Blueprint from 0.5 to 1.0 release > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John D. > > > Ament > > >> > >>>>>>> <john.d.am...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Yep, agreed. Users care about the > > > version #. I would recommend > > >> > >>>> that if we > > >> > >>>>>>>> could release a 1.0 based on the > > > current code base + some > > >> > additional > > >> > >>>> bug > > >> > >>>>>>>> fixes we'll get huge wins. > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>> +1 to switching current to > > > 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT. > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, > > > Mark Struberg < > > >> > strub...@yahoo.de> > > >> > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Hi! > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> In the last 2 months I did a few > > > conference talks and smaller > > >> > >>>>>>>>> presentations (OpenBlend, W-JAX, > > > ..) and always got the same > > >> > >>>>>>> questions: > > >> > >>>>>>>>> "it's only a 0.x > > > version, so is it already stable? I > > >> > >>>>>>> don't like to use it > > >> > >>>>>>>>> in production with 0.x" > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> And the actual answer is: > > > "well, core, cdictrl, etc are stable > > >> > >>>>>>> since a > > >> > >>>>>>>>> long time, other modules are not > > > yet 100% where we like them". > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> The other fact is that we will > > > never get all our modules 100% > > >> > >>>> stable. > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Because new modules cannot be > > > released with the same quality > > >> than > > >> > >>>>>>>>> established and well known and > > > bugfixed modules. > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Thus I think we should rather > > > introduce a kind of > > >> majurity-matrix > > >> > >>>> for > > >> > >>>>>>>>> DeltaSpike. > > >> > >>>>>>>>> A simple list of modules and > > > their majurity grade. > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> By officially moving to 1.0 we > > > would gain much more users. > > >> > >>>>>>>>> I personally do not care about > > > numbers, but LOTS of users do! > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Wdyt? > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> LieGrue, > > >> > >>>>>>>>> strub > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>>> -- > > >> > >>>>>>> Charles Moulliard > > >> > >>>>>>> Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat > > >> > >>>>>>> Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog : > > > http://cmoulliard.github.io > > >> > >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
