that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 or we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have the choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a 1.0 so already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. Only new modules don't have them. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on deltaspike-core, it's > a module > > @romain: > > again: >> 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). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I >> dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are >> already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we >> shouldn't change it anymore. >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén <karl.kil...@gmail.com>: >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside / >> > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are >> different. >> > >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the force. >> > >> > >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl. >> >> >> >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to >> match >> >> our other project names. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: >> >> >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY benefit. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our real >> >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even have a >> >> > dependency to ds-core. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that all >> >> the >> >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? >> How do >> >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? >> >> > >> >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's >> really >> >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. >> >> > >> >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ >> >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. >> >> > >> >> > LieGrue, >> >> > strub >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, 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 >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
