Hi folks!

I've now moved our trunk to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and created a fresh 1.1.x 
maintenance branch from the 1.1.6 tag:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openwebbeans/branches/owb_1.1.x

This is now state 1.1.6 with only the versions upgraded to 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT. 
Please pick the fixes you need for 1.1.7 and apply it over there as well.

What should go on in 1.2.0:

We are basically free to even change the SPI for 1.2.0!

Thus I have the following refactorings in the chain:

* Introduce HierarchicScannerService and HierarchicBeanManager. We need this 
for better performing EAR support

* drop our SecurityService and use Matt Bensons bytecode @Privileged trick. We 
are currently discussing whether Matt should move this to a new 
commons-privilizer project.
* finish the move from javassist to ASM4
* move from scannotation to xbean-finder or commons-classscan

* remove our own Class.get.... handling and switch over to only use 
AnnotatedTypes for scanning. We probably can get rid of lots of code that way!


LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----
> From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: 1.1.8 or 1.2.0 ?
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> 2012/11/11 Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com>
> 
>>  +1 for 1.2.0
>> 
>>  Gurkan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ________________________________
>>   Kimden: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
>>  Kime: openwebbeans-dev <dev@openwebbeans.apache.org>
>>  Gönderildiği Tarih: 10 Kasım 2012 17:21 Cumartesi
>>  Konu: 1.1.8 or 1.2.0 ?
>> 
>>  Hi folks!
>> 
>>  Removing functionality from webbeans-impl into an own module + changes in
>>  the API might be too big a change for a bugfix release.
>> 
>>  So I'd rather bump the minor version as well and work towards a 1.2.0.
>>  This would also allow us to finish the 85% finished move to ASM as well as
>>  finally committing the HierarchicScannerService and HierarchicBeanManager
>>  we need for properly supporting EARs.
>> 
>>  wdyt?
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub
>> 
>

Reply via email to