[DISCUSS] releasing owb-1.0.0 next week?
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 ;) I have to verify 2 smaller issues (1st about multiple qualifiers, 2nd about thread safety in our AbstractContext under heavy load) which I like to write test cases for before the release. But both should be doable until end of next week. So my schedule would be to start the build on Aug. 20th. WDYT? There is no hurry to change large blocks now since we will do releases every 1-2 month or so. LieGrue, strub
Re: [DISCUSS] releasing owb-1.0.0 next week?
+1 Thanks; --Gurkan From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 10:37:21 AM Subject: [DISCUSS] releasing owb-1.0.0 next week? 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 ;) I have to verify 2 smaller issues (1st about multiple qualifiers, 2nd about thread safety in our AbstractContext under heavy load) which I like to write test cases for before the release. But both should be doable until end of next week. So my schedule would be to start the build on Aug. 20th. WDYT? There is no hurry to change large blocks now since we will do releases every 1-2 month or so. LieGrue, strub
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
Re: [DISCUSS] releasing owb-1.0.0 next week?
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
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
