+1 On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @mark: +1 > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2013/4/11 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> I'd say we keep 1.2 as CDI-1.0 and implement CDI-1.1 in 2.0. >> >> Reason is that this will allow TomEE-1.6.x to switch to owb-1.2.x and take >> a bit more time to implement cdi-1.1 without having to stay on owb-1.1.x >> This will be much easier to maintain and develop cdi-1.1 that way imo. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> >>> To: "dev@openwebbeans.apache.org" <dev@openwebbeans.apache.org> >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:12 PM >>> Subject: Go ahead with CDI 1.1 >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I would like to go ahead and implement CDI 1.1 on the OWB 1.2 stream. >>> I wonder, if some of the java ee container implementors want to use the >> 1.2 >>> stream in a pre java ee 7 release. >>> If so, I would like to find a way to do this. Maybe this would be >> possible with >>> a maven profile and some maven hacking (has someone used the >>> maven-replacer-plugin?). >>> If no one is interested in a CDI 1.0 OWB 1.2 stream, we directly can go >> ahead >>> and implement CDI 1.1 >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Arne >>> >>
