Robert Burrell Donkin [mailto:robertburrelldon...@gmail.com] wrote on: 17 August 2009 10:52
> IMO it's not possible to bind future decisions by a past vote. at any > time, any committer can force a vote by -1'ing a particular code > change. so, any decision to use guice only really happens when the > code is committed without a -1. similarly, this vote does not mean > that committers in the future can't use some other injector or > container a try: what matters is whether the particular code changes > are -1'd or not. > > FWIW providing that there are developers willing to port james to > guice, i'm happy for them to give it a try. if it works then i'd be > happy to see trunk move to it. > > - robert I agree with Robert's logic. As the rules stand we vote on the quality of delivered code, rather than statements of direction. But without a statement of direction we are in stasis. So, [+1] To move forward with a proof of concept (POC) sandboxed cut of trunk which uses Guice for CDI [-1] for accepting the POC as the way forward without reviewing the results [+100} for people to take this on The last being by far the most important. Cheers --Steve > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Norman > Maurer<nor...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > as stated before ( See email thread "Container/DI") I would like to > > change the current way the DI is used in JAMES. I would > like to start > > a VOTE to see if others agree with using Guice for all DI > stuff in the > > future. > > So here we go: > > > > [ ] +1 Move to Guice for DI > > [ ] +0 I don't care to much > > [ ] -1 No please don't use Guice > > > > Thx, > > Norman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
