Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY benefit. The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our real 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even have a dependency to ds-core. How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that all the parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project? How do you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly? It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's really more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core. I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_ ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither. LieGrue, strub On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, Gerhard Petracek wrote: +1 there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes >before< v1. we had a >similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it. >(+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very beginning). > >if we change something like that, we should also re-visit the >security-module (the initial reason for creating an own module isn't there >any longer). > >regards, >gerhard > > > > >2014-02-10 13:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > >> Can't we change the parent? >> IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0. >> >> >> 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> >> > We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules >> > because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change the >> > artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. >> > >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko < >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : >> > > >> > >> -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) >> > >> >> > >> +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control >> > >> >> > >> +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no deps on >> > >> core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a user's >> > >> point of view). >> > >> >> > >> Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just need to >> > >> be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects (e.g. >> > >> we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to upgrade). >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> > >> >: >> > >> >> i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on >> > >> deltaspike-core. >> > >> >> (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) >> > >> >> >> > >> >> regards, >> > >> >> gerhard >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> > >> >> >> > >> >>> Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not change >> > it's >> > >> >>> name. >> > >> >>> test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to >> change. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> LieGrue, >> > >> >>> strub >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén < >> > karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>> wrote: >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> Hello, >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called >> > >> >>> test-control >> > >> >>> >it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though cdiCtrl >> is >> > >> not a >> > >> >>> >module it's not so pretty... >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >Cheers / Karl >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
[jira] [Commented] (DELTASPIKE-522) Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other modules named control.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-522?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13901187#comment-13901187 ] Romain Manni-Bucau commented on DELTASPIKE-522: --- +1 this is already too much used to change it even before 1.0. > Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other modules named control. > - > > Key: DELTASPIKE-522 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-522 > Project: DeltaSpike > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: CdiControl >Reporter: John D. Ament >Assignee: John D. Ament > Fix For: 0.6 > > > Refactor cdi ctrl to be under modules. Update all relevant docs and realign > parent pom to match other modules. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1.5#6160)
[jira] [Commented] (DELTASPIKE-522) Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other modules named control.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-522?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13901183#comment-13901183 ] Mark Struberg commented on DELTASPIKE-522: -- Please do NOT move it to modules. It just does not belong there. It is something completely different on it's own. It does not even need deltaspike-core. You might change the name of the directory, but please do also NOT change the groupId and artifactId! This would break the projects of many users! CdiCtrl is already *heavily* in use. > Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other modules named control. > - > > Key: DELTASPIKE-522 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-522 > Project: DeltaSpike > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: CdiControl >Reporter: John D. Ament >Assignee: John D. Ament > Fix For: 0.6 > > > Refactor cdi ctrl to be under modules. Update all relevant docs and realign > parent pom to match other modules. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1.5#6160)
[jira] [Updated] (DELTASPIKE-522) Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other modules named control.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-522?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] John D. Ament updated DELTASPIKE-522: - Summary: Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other modules named control. (was: Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other things named control.) > Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other modules named control. > - > > Key: DELTASPIKE-522 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-522 > Project: DeltaSpike > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: CdiControl >Reporter: John D. Ament >Assignee: John D. Ament > Fix For: 0.6 > > > Refactor cdi ctrl to be under modules. Update all relevant docs and realign > parent pom to match other modules. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1.5#6160)
[jira] [Created] (DELTASPIKE-522) Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other things named control.
John D. Ament created DELTASPIKE-522: Summary: Align cdiCtrl to modules and rename to match other things named control. Key: DELTASPIKE-522 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-522 Project: DeltaSpike Issue Type: Improvement Components: CdiControl Reporter: John D. Ament Assignee: John D. Ament Fix For: 0.6 Refactor cdi ctrl to be under modules. Update all relevant docs and realign parent pom to match other modules. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1.5#6160)
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
If everyone's ok with it, I can do the refactoring this weekend. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Thomas Andraschko wrote: > Who will take care of it? > At least, we should create a issue about it... > > > 2014-02-10 14:48 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > >> exactly. We're still pre 1.0. Now's the time to do it. >> >> It won't affect existing projects since the versions they're on are >> still out there. Only if they want to upgrade. >> >> I think changing the parent structure is the right thing to do. >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Gerhard Petracek >> wrote: >> > +1 there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes >before< v1. we had a >> > similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it. >> > (+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very >> beginning). >> > >> > if we change something like that, we should also re-visit the >> > security-module (the initial reason for creating an own module isn't >> there >> > any longer). >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-10 13:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>: >> > >> >> Can't we change the parent? >> >> IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> >> >> >> > We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules >> >> > because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change >> the >> >> > artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > LieGrue, >> >> > strub >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko < >> >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : >> >> > > >> >> > >> -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) >> >> > >> >> >> > >> +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control >> >> > >> >> >> > >> +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no >> deps on >> >> > >> core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a >> user's >> >> > >> point of view). >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just >> need to >> >> > >> be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects >> (e.g. >> >> > >> we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to >> upgrade). >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> > >> > test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO >> >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> > >> >: >> >> > >> >> i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on >> >> > >> deltaspike-core. >> >> > >> >> (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> regards, >> >> > >> >> gerhard >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >>> Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not >> change >> >> > it's >> >> > >> >>> name. >> >> > >> >>> test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to >> >> change. >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> LieGrue, >> >> > >> >>> strub >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén < >> >> > karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> >> > >> >>> wrote: >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> Hello, >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> >I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called >> >> > >> >>> test-control >> >> > >> >>> >it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though >> cdiCtrl >> >> is >> >> > >> not a >> >> > >> >>> >module it's not so pretty... >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> >Cheers / Karl >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
Re: Revisit cdiCtrl module name and how it's inconsistent with test-control?
Who will take care of it? At least, we should create a issue about it... 2014-02-10 14:48 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > exactly. We're still pre 1.0. Now's the time to do it. > > It won't affect existing projects since the versions they're on are > still out there. Only if they want to upgrade. > > I think changing the parent structure is the right thing to do. > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Gerhard Petracek > wrote: > > +1 there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes >before< v1. we had a > > similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it. > > (+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very > beginning). > > > > if we change something like that, we should also re-visit the > > security-module (the initial reason for creating an own module isn't > there > > any longer). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014-02-10 13:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Can't we change the parent? > >> IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0. > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> > >> > We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under modules > >> > because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not change > the > >> > artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects. > >> > > >> > > >> > LieGrue, > >> > strub > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko < > >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament : > >> > > > >> > >> -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same purpose) > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl has no > deps on > >> > >> core, making it a module makes it easier to understand from a > user's > >> > >> point of view). > >> > >> > >> > >> Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people just > need to > >> > >> be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their projects > (e.g. > >> > >> we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to > upgrade). > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like it IMHO > >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> > >> >: > >> > >> >> i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based on > >> > >> deltaspike-core. > >> > >> >> (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.) > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> regards, > >> > >> >> gerhard > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather not > change > >> > it's > >> > >> >>> name. > >> > >> >>> test-control is not yet released. So that would be easier to > >> change. > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> LieGrue, > >> > >> >>> strub > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén < > >> > karl.kil...@gmail.com> > >> > >> >>> wrote: > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> Hello, > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> >I know it's been discussed before but now with a module called > >> > >> >>> test-control > >> > >> >>> >it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even though > cdiCtrl > >> is > >> > >> not a > >> > >> >>> >module it's not so pretty... > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> >Cheers / Karl > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
