I think it's best if we only depend on the spec. Without actually diving into the material I don't know how hard it is to get it to work in that manner though.
Kind regards, Arjan Seijkens -----Original Message----- From: Kasper Sørensen <i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:51 PM To: dev@metamodel.apache.org Subject: Re: I'd like to release. You agree? And what should we name the version? I'm doing a bit of the same actually, on DataCleaner community edition though. And I'm running into a banned dependency issue which I can fix locally in DataCleaner, but I wonder what the best to do is ... The issue is with JAXB-RT and JAXWS-RT. With the changes to SugarCRM we now depend directly on the com.sun... dependencies. We used to only depend on the spec. What do you think is best? Den ons. 5. dec. 2018 kl. 08.11 skrev Kasper Sørensen < i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com>: > That sounds reasonable :-) > > Den tir. 4. dec. 2018 kl. 23.06 skrev Arjan Seijkens < > a.seijk...@quadient.com>: > >> I'll be mostly checking if it doesn't cause any serious problems for >> building DataCleaner (it works fine for Java 8 after adding a few >> exclusions in dependencies to DataCleaner), next to that I'm going to >> do a little bit of testing with SugarCRM. If you don't hear any >> complaints from me before Friday, please start the release procedure. >> >> Kind regards, >> Arjan Seijkens >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kasper Sørensen <i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 8:43 PM >> To: dev@metamodel.apache.org >> Subject: Re: I'd like to release. You agree? And what should we name >> the version? >> >> Great, thanks for the input guys. Sounds like we're agreeing on >> version >> *5.2.0* then. >> >> @Arjan please let us know how much time you're talking about and what >> you're doing and finding :-) >> >> Den tir. 4. dec. 2018 kl. 00.58 skrev Alberto Rodriguez < >> ardl...@gmail.com>: >> >> > I would bump to 5.2.0 taking into account the updated deps to be >> > JDK8-11 compatible. >> > >> > El mar., 4 dic. 2018 a las 8:10, Arjan Seijkens >> > (<a.seijk...@quadient.com >> > >) >> > escribió: >> > >> > > I think releasing is a good idea. I'm personally still testing >> > > the latest java 9 through 11 related changes and maybe will come >> > > up with some >> > findings >> > > based on those changes. So I would like a little time for that. >> > > >> > > I personally think 5.2.0 would be the best option for the >> > > version, >> > because >> > > the introduction of java 9 through 11 support is quite a step up >> > > from my perspective. >> > > >> > > Kind regards, >> > > Arjan Seijkens >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Kasper Sørensen <i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 5:54 AM >> > > To: dev@metamodel.apache.org >> > > Subject: I'd like to release. You agree? And what should we name >> > > the version? >> > > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > I'd like to release MetaModel rather soon. In the current master >> > > branch >> > we >> > > have these two changes ready: >> > > >> > > * [METAMODEL-1205] - Updated build and dependencies to be JDK8-11 >> > > compatible. Important updates include Guava, POI, Cassandra, Hadoop. >> > > * [METAMODEL-1206] - Solved Maven version dependent unit test >> > > issues in ElasticSearch-native module. >> > > >> > > They're both pretty much internal, except that the dependency >> > > updates are going to be pretty significant for anyone upgrading >> > > from version 5.1.0 >> > (or >> > > other recent releases) as their transitive dependencies will >> > > likely get upgraded as well. >> > > >> > > So that brings up the quesion about what to name a new release. >> > > On one hand it's almost a non-functional upgrade, so we could go >> > > with version >> > name >> > > *5.1.1*. on the other hand it updates the supported and required >> > > versions of dependencies a lot. So I think I personally think it >> > > should be version *5.2.0*. What do you think? >> > > >> > > - Kasper >> > > >> > >> >
