the workarounds aren't that bad. it's just that we could drop more
reflection calls (similar to what we discussed for jdk8 and
java.util.Optional).

ok - i'll document details about the warnings during the bootstrapping
process (and if needed how to get rid of some of them).

regards,
gerhard



2018-04-04 6:13 GMT+02:00 Rudy De Busscher <rdebussc...@gmail.com>:

> I have not a clear view of the workarounds which are made and how
> 'bad'/hacky they are. But when we don't have major complaints about it (now
> or in the past) I would not invest too much time in a temporary version for
> CDI 1.2.
>
> so #3.
>
> Rudy
>
> On 3 April 2018 at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > All work for me and the apps i work on since a few years.
> >
> > Le 3 avr. 2018 22:17, "Thomas Andraschko" <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > +1 for 3)
> > > the workarounds are really not that big...
> > >
> > > i would leave it as it is for now and start with DS 2.0 (= CDI2.0 only)
> > the
> > > next months.
> > >
> > > 2018-04-03 22:06 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > hi @ all,
> > > >
> > > > since we will need to maintain v1.8.x for a while and it's too early
> > for
> > > > using cdi 2.0 (for a while), we should discuss if we should have one
> > > branch
> > > > using cdi 1.2+.
> > > > it would allow to get rid of several workarounds (and the
> corresponding
> > > > warnings during the bootstrapping process).
> > > >
> > > > we had a short discussion in the irc-channel about the following
> > options:
> > > > #1) ds v1.x as it is right now; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 1.2+
> > > >
> > > > vs
> > > >
> > > > #2) ds v1.8.x: as it is right now; ds > v1.8.x && < v2.x: jdk8 with
> cdi
> > > > v1.2+; ds v2: jdk8 with cdi 2.0+
> > > >
> > > > vs
> > > >
> > > > #3) we don't care about v1.2 as a min. requirement at all
> > > > (the workarounds are minimal anyway and users can continue to ignore
> > the
> > > > warnings during the bootstrapping process)
> > > >
> > > > or for sure
> > > > #4) [any other nice suggestion]
> > > >
> > > > -> please send your preferred approach
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > gerhard
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to