BTW, would it be possible to encourage the cdi expert group to specify the
correct osgi package versions for the spec packages? I think the 1.0 spec
getting 1.0 package versions is pretty easy to agree on, I'd like it if the 1.1
package versions were both semantically correct and specified in t
I created GERONIMO-6182 and set up a geronimo specs project for the cdi 1.1
spec by copying the 1.0 spec project.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec
I'll do my best to apply patches attached to the jira promptly.
thanks
david jencks
On Oct 5, 2011, at
in such a case we have to be careful with releases of the trunk. imo we
shouldn't release e.g. new apis before the spec. is final to ensure that cdi
1.0 users can update without problems.
e.g. if we implement new apis which aren't final, we might not be able to
use that version of owb as dependency
+1 for b) as well.
I assume we might want to start on 1.1 work before the spec is final,
so might not want to wait that long for a branch to do that work.
Sincerely,
Joe
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Gerhard Petracek
wrote:
> +1 for b) as soon as cdi 1.1 is final
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> h
+1 for b) as soon as cdi 1.1 is final
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2011/10/5 Mark Struberg
> Hi folks!
>
> While working on OWB-589 yesterday, I realized that
Hi folks!
While working on OWB-589 yesterday, I realized that we cannot use our old 1.0
TCK for new CDI-1.1 features anymore.
While OWB always was more like a CDI-1.1 container than 1.0 ('global'
interceptors, no BDA), there are still some changes which are notable.
*) CDI-1.1 adds a few annota
