Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-07 Thread Shane Bryzak
, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s hi @ all, we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named annotation for all our annotations within a package. however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains annotations. e.g

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-07 Thread Charles Moulliard
+1 On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote: hi @ all, we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named annotation for all our annotations within a package. however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains annotations. e.g.

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-02 Thread Pete Muir
are like interfaces nowadays. So this is just superfluous. LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s hi

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-02 Thread Cody Lerum
this is just superfluous. LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s hi @ all, we had an agreement

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-02 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s hi @ all, we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named annotation for all our annotations within a package. however, it feels a bit clumsy

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-02 Thread Mark Struberg
rmannibu...@gmail.com To: gudnabr...@gmail.com; deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp = maturity = stability Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, Matt

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-02 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp = maturity = stability Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com a écrit : I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked concepts. I would

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-02 Thread Jason Porter
; deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp = maturity = stability Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com a écrit

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-02 Thread Gerhard Petracek
@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp = maturity = stability Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com a écrit

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-04-01 Thread Christian Kaltepoth
- From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s hi @ all, we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named annotation for all our

[DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-03-31 Thread Gerhard Petracek
hi @ all, we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named annotation for all our annotations within a package. however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains annotations. e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package annotation. currently we have a

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-03-31 Thread Jason Porter
I'm happy either way. Though in the rest of Java EE, there are no annotation packages. Perhaps we should align with the way things are laid out in the Java EE packages. On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote: hi @ all, we had an agreement to use a

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-03-31 Thread John D. Ament
Unfortunately even the EE specs are not in agreement whether or not to have an annotation package. I think we should drop the packages. On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jason Porter lightguard...@gmail.comwrote: I'm happy either way. Though in the rest of Java EE, there are no annotation

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-03-31 Thread Mark Struberg
] re-visit annotation package/s hi @ all, we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named annotation for all our annotations within a package. however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains annotations. e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s

2013-03-31 Thread Cody Lerum
-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit annotation package/s hi @ all, we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named annotation for all our annotations within a package. however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package