2016-09-25 17:40 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:37 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > 2016-09-25 17:33 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko < > [email protected] > > >: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > we can switch them of on CDI 2 while we still maintain it on CDI 1.0, > that > > said not sure we should switch them off, all are not really standard I > > think and impl can still be important (anyway we can work on a list on > > another thread maybe) > > > > IMHO, we do a disservice to the community by keeping both CDI 1.0 and 2.0 > in the same release branch. We can't safely compile against both CDI 1.0 > and 2.0 in the same profile. > > right but was not the proposal which was to keep current branch and add CDI 2.0 features in another module and run this one only on CDI 2 servers but still run on CDI 2.0 servers the other modules through jenkins.
Clearly the question is cost(2 branches) <?> cost(1 branch). Suppose you duplicate the code 1s, you will get 2 core-api/core-impl modules which would be the same so you would change the groupId or artifact arbitrarly? I find this clearly more misleading than having a ds-cdi2 module and keeping the original ones as it is today when it will be time of migrations. > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-09-25 17:28 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > 2016-09-25 17:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
