2016-09-25 17:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:34 AM Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > not sure if a cdi2-module is enough > > we should also get rid of some of our api's which are in CDI 2.0 now > > > > Yes. I agree. Basically, one sticking target I see continually is > BeanManagerProvider. Maybe we keep it around as a utility and for > backwards compatibility, but its now available as CDI.current(), to do > programmatic look up. > > we delegate on CDI 1.1 already so it doesn't hurt
> In addition, there are features like manual injection of fields, which > could be replaced by Unmaanaged. I know as a user of CDI 1.2, seeing both > available makes me confused, but its because we didn't make a DS version > that was CDI 1.1+ compatible. > > we can still extract these "core" part in a module on the main branch Personally I see it as making DS a bit more modular (even if main dependencies are still bringing back the same "stack"). But typically having core-cdi1, config, scope etc... is very seducing, whatever version we target, and would also solve the cdi 2 issue, no? > John > > > > > > 2016-09-25 17:28 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > 2016-09-25 17:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > > > Since its inception, DeltaSpike has targeted Java EE 6 and lower, and > > as > > > a > > > > result the CDI 1.0 runtime. We have maintained a pretty backwards > > > > compatible code base for 5 years now. > > > > > > > > CDI 2.0 is going to wrap up in January, if current schedules align > > > > correctly. > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose that we start a branch for 2.0 development now. > It > > > > would be a good place to put fixes for > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1206 and other > > > > enhancements that we can make to our core runtime to better integrate > > > with > > > > CDI 1.1/1.2/2.0 features that have been added. In addition to the > > Java 8 > > > > upgrade taking place there. > > > > > > > > We can keep master on 1.x for patches that may be needed for the 1.x > > > line, > > > > and rebase them with a 2.0 branch to make sure both branches get the > > > fixes. > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > What feature do we target and need CDI 2.0 for it? If none I think we > > don't > > > need the branch yet, if enough we should also think to have a cdi2 > module > > > to avoid to fork code while 1.0/1.1 is maintained > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > >
