Who will take care of it? At least, we should create a issue about it...
2014-02-10 14:48 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com>: > 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 > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
