hi @ all,
we need an agreement about the module name (and if multiple modules are
needed).
it would be useful to do it before v0.3 (which should get released asap).
regards,
gerhard
2012/7/10 Arne Limburg arne.limb...@openknowledge.de
Hi Romain,
Nothing for the 0.3 release. But we
Apologies, I meant have it in eventually e.g. 0.4 not have it in this
release :-).
On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:25, Pete Muir wrote:
I would like us to have this bit in, whether it's in a separate module, or
core, that is fine by me.
On 27 Jul 2012, at 23:29, Mark Struberg wrote:
I'd rather
And by it I mean the mini-authentication API + credentials + events we had in
0.2 :-)
On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:29, Pete Muir wrote:
Apologies, I meant have it in eventually e.g. 0.4 not have it in this
release :-).
On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:25, Pete Muir wrote:
I would like us to have this
Do we want to split out transactions from persistence? IMO it's best to keep
the two together:
* deltaspike-persistence-api
* deltaspike-persistence-impl
* deltaspike-persistence-tx-impl
I think most people naturally associate persistence with transactions.
On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:58, Mark
Since we currently have not a gain splitting both (people bringing jpa
btings jta i think or the opposite *in real life*) we can keep a single
module IMO
- Romain
Le 30 juil. 2012 13:01, Pete Muir pm...@redhat.com a écrit :
Do we want to split out transactions from persistence? IMO it's best to
based on the new information provided by pete: +1 to keep it as it is (at
least for v0.3).
(we could think about separated packages before we release v1).
regards,
gerhard
2012/7/30 Pete Muir pm...@redhat.com
I was talking with Gerhard on IRC, and in Seam 3, we split persistence and
