@thomas: +1 @micro-profile: e.g. we should keep @Transactional (however, we should align the api with the data-module)
@core: if we really use cdi2 as the new baseline, we can drop the builders as well as the literals for std. annotations. @test-control: we should drop the mock-support (and document the manual approach - as discussed recently). + we could move to junit-rules. @servlet-module: we can drop most parts of the injection-support. regards, gerhard 2017-06-04 13:04 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]>: > Yep! > What about global alternatives? Could we remove them, too? > > 2017-06-03 21:32 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > > I agree with Thomas. While always minimal, if we can trim our internal > > libraries and make them a bit more user friendly, it will simplify how > > users leverage our modules (e.g. maybe we don't have a core module > > anymore). This means better module isolation. If Mark brings config to > > Geronimo via MP then we could even provide the legacy DeltaSpike Config > as > > a compatibility layer for those using it. > > > > I'm also confused about the comment around "micro-profile" as well as > "cdi2 > > as a new baseline once its really useful" > > > > John > > > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:58 PM Thomas Andraschko < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > IMO we should try to do a cut in 2.0 and do a big cleanup (1.x should > be > > in > > > maintenance to support < JavaEE8): > > > - Drop bval module and the servlet module. AFAIR the injection support > is > > > already in JavaEE 8. > > > - We can also try to remove some core APIs (BeanManagerProvider) > > > - Cleanup the JSF Module (injection support is also available in > JavaEE8) > > > - Cleanup Java8 hacks > > > > > > What parts to you mean which are required for a microprofile? > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-06-03 17:42 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > 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 < > > > [email protected] > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > 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 <[email protected] > >: > > > > > > > > > > > @romain: +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-06-03 16:19 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > > [email protected] > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any strong feature from cdi 2 we need? If so +1 otherwise -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 3 juin 2017 16:07, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
