imo there's not a lot we should drop, because users might need those parts e.g. for applications based on the micro-profile. maybe it's just a matter of documenting an useful combination of ee8 + ds and/or to highlight which parts of ds are covered by ee8.
@ds2: maybe we should mainly take the chance to improve the consistency (= few but breaking api-changes). (+ only use cdi2,... as a new baseline once it's really useful.) regards, gerhard 2017-06-03 16:35 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>: > basically +1 > we can do some cleanup (like removing features + modules which are > available in JavaEE8) > BUT - many user won't use JavaEE8 until next year as the AS' are not ready. > So IMO it's not necessary now. > > I will currently start to do some internal cleanup on the Data Module e.g. > > 2017-06-03 16:21 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org>: > > > @romain: +1 > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1 > > > > > > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit > : > > > > > > > Hey guys > > > > > > > > I'm not sure there's much more for us to do in 1.x as far as feature > > > goes, > > > > but I could be wrong. I do think we should start to ramp up work > > > > DeltaSpike 2.0: > > > > > > > > - Baseline on CDI 2.0, Java EE 8, Java 8 > > > > - Remove older components that are not needed any more > > > > - See if there's new features we can add > > > > > > > > Thoughts? I'm thinking this could either be a 2.x branch, or we move > > > > master to a 1.x maintenance branch while we work on 2.0 in master. > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > >
