exactly. We're still pre 1.0. Now's the time to do it. It won't affect existing projects since the versions they're on are still out there. Only if they want to upgrade.
I think changing the parent structure is the right thing to do. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes >before< v1. we had a > similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it. > (+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very beginning). > > if we change something like that, we should also re-visit the > security-module (the initial reason for creating an own module isn't there > any longer). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-10 13:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>: > >> Can't we change the parent? >> IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0. >> >> >> 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: >> >> > We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules >> > because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change the >> > artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. >> > >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko < >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > >> -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) >> > >> >> > >> +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control >> > >> >> > >> +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no deps on >> > >> core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a user's >> > >> point of view). >> > >> >> > >> Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just need to >> > >> be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects (e.g. >> > >> we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to upgrade). >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> > >> >: >> > >> >> i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on >> > >> deltaspike-core. >> > >> >> (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) >> > >> >> >> > >> >> regards, >> > >> >> gerhard >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: >> > >> >> >> > >> >>> Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not change >> > it's >> > >> >>> name. >> > >> >>> test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to >> change. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> LieGrue, >> > >> >>> strub >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén < >> > karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>> wrote: >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> Hello, >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called >> > >> >>> test-control >> > >> >>> >it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though cdiCtrl >> is >> > >> not a >> > >> >>> >module it's not so pretty... >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >Cheers / Karl >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
