sure, go on. txs and LieGrue, strub
----- Original Message ---- > From: Gerhard <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 4:31:52 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releasing owb-1.0.0 next week? > > +1 > > i would like to commit at least the current version of OWB-407 (if there are > no objections). > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2010/8/10 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > Thanks Eric, but please make this available as alternate implementation > > only. > > Because I honestly think the BDA definition is utterly broken in the spec > > (*)! > > It makes assumptions about classloading mechanisms which are _most_ times > > true > > for _old_ EE containers but is a) NOT defined in the EE spec and b) is NOT > > true > > for modern EE containers anymore (which heavily use OSGi under the hood). > > > > I honestly believe that the mechanisms we have currently does suite > > professional > > needs much better than this overly strict BDA stuff does. And we _still_ > > pass > > the TCK, so there is imo nothing to worry yet! > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > (*) marking a JAR (if available) as containing jars is really fine. And > > with > > Pete having added CDATA sections to the schema recently, we could now also > > add > > our own namespaced exclude and include rules to beans.xml for speeding up > > the > > classpath scanning. This is really neat. > > BUT there are a few heavily broken thinkgs in the BDA part of the spec. A > > few > > examples: > > > > .) having to write <alternatives> into EACH BDA where it should be active > > is > > just idiotic > > .) same for <interceptors> > > .) same for <decorators> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> > > > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > > > Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 3:56:29 PM > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] releasing owb-1.0.0 next week? > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > wrote: > > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > > > Gurkan and I had a small chat yesterday about the stability of > > OpenWebBeans. > > >And > > > > we both agree that it really would deserve a 1.0.0 number because it's > > >pretty > > > > stable. At least a lot more stable than many commercial products with > > a 1.0 > > > > release number ;) > > > > > > +1, I hope to work on BDA awareness in the scanner service / > > > {Bean,Alternatives,Interceptor}Manager stuff and I don't want to > > > derail 1.0 with it! > > > > > > Would we branch at 1.0, and would 1.0 still be CTR? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Eric Covener > > > cove...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > >
