And Thank You for the vote!!

-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Counting votes it seems it passed:
> 
> +1s:  Alan D Cabrera, David Blevins, Romain Manni-Bucau
> +0: Jean-Baptiste Onofré, Mark Struberg
> -1: no
> 
> thank you all for your votes.
> 
> PS: ones having identified some issues would be welcomed to at least
> open a jira explaining it and potentially proposing a fix if you
> already have an idea to not forget them for 4.1
> 
> I'll publish binaries tonight.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> 
> 
> 2014-08-25 17:08 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>> @David: it was filtering java.lang.Object since it was created, java.*
>> filter just extend this logic since it will never works (excepted if
>> you bring java.* in your app which is unlikely. That said method is
>> protected to be able to override it.
>> 
>> 
>> In all case (I think I mentionned it several times) 4.x x > 0 will
>> make it more usable (OSGi, this if you think it is bad etc...). Main
>> purpose was to get a first release fixing linking time and respecting
>> the constructor contract
>> 
>> 
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-08-25 16:12 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>:
>>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The main changes are:
>>> [...]
>>>> skip java.* classes since we'll not get their bytecode for sure
>>>> (protected method if needed)
>>> 
>>> I'm not a fan of hard coding filtering inside the AnnotationFinder itself, 
>>> so +1 under the condition that we remain open to revising this in a future 
>>> release.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -David
>>> 

Reply via email to