Romain, this is really almost impossible to maintain if you split the stuff too much!
A lot of things are depending on each others. I see absolutely no sense to exclude stuff which works perfectly fine in SE and EE just because you would not use it. This are 5 classes so far - just don't use them and they wont hurt you :) LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:17 PM > Subject: Re: cdi-query > > @Pete: DS can deliver fine grain modules which are nice for some part of > the users and shade modules ("big jar") for advances user. Just a > maven > trick. this way everuone is happy and honestly today any nice IDE supports > it without any issue. > > - Romain > > > 2012/6/27 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > >> It's insanely complex for a new user. Java is already confusing, with > it's >> hundreds of libs. Adding more complexity to packaging won't help with >> DeltaSpike adoption IMO. >> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> >> > Mark, >> > >> > what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module > simply >> > for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO. >> > >> > - Romain >> > >> > >> > 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> > >> >> Romain, Arne. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into > which >> >> module. Any suggestion is welcome >> >> I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just > 30 >> >> classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl > each) >> might >> >> really be too much! >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> ________________________________ >> >>> From: Arne Limburg <[email protected]> >> >>> To: "[email protected]" < >> >> [email protected]> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM >> >>> Subject: AW: cdi-query >> >>> >> >>> I completely agree with Romain on that topic >> >>> >> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> >>> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46 >> >>> An: [email protected] >> >>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query >> >>> >> >>> Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed > in >> another >> >> thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing > users >> to >> >> take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great >> feature. >> >>> >> >>> - Romain >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <[email protected]> >> >>> >> >>>> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. > As a user I >> >>>> don't think I'd like maintaining another x > dependencies, those POMs >> >>>> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount > of features >> >>>> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall > into the >> >>>> "decent size" category. >> >>>> >> >>>> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient > when using >> >>>> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, > obviously JPA >> >>>> queries or a JAX-RS client). >> >>>> >> >>>> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home > API in a >> >>>> productive application, still I found it quite handy for > prototyping. >> >>>> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and > create e.g. a >> >>>> Forge scaffolding provider?). >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> Tom >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>>> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58 >> >>>> To: [email protected] >> >>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query >> >>>> >> >>>> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon... >> >>>> >> >>>> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, > and we all >> >>>> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new > module: >> >>>> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, > jpa, jsf) >> >>>> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a > decent size (min >> >>>> ~30..50 new classes) >> >>>> >> >>>> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 > classes yet, I do >> >>>> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them. >> >>>> >> >>>> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new > API or not. >> >>>> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 > gave us much >> >>>> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall > back to _old_ >> >> EE patterns. >> >>>> >> >>>> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' > module would better >> >>>> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain > JTA but also >> >>>> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> LieGrue, >> >>>> strub >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> >>>>> To: [email protected] >> >>>>> Cc: >> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM >> >>>>> Subject: Re: cdi-query >> >>>>> >> >>>>> +1 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> - Romain >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek > <[email protected]> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> @ pete: >> >>>>>> +1 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> @ java-se vs java-ee features: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> we can think about a more fine-grained structure > (similar to seam3). >> >>>>>> e.g.: >> >>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-transaction >> >>>>>> deltaspike-jpa-query >> >>>>>> ... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> regards, >> >>>>>> gerhard >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <[email protected]> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Well, we were looking for some good use cases > for the >> >> ServiceHandler. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I would be in support of adding it to DS core, > now we have a >> >>>>>> strong >> >>>>> use >> >>>>>>> case. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Property util should not be controversial. > Maybe we can improve >> >>>>> it's API >> >>>>>>> whilst we are at it :-) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Eventually this came in a little early, > but it's already on >> >>>>> the radar: >> >>>>>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> The current implementation mainly depends > on the Solder >> >>>>> ServiceHandler >> >>>>>>> (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting > for CDI 1.1) and >> >>>>>> the Property > utils. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >> >>>>>>>> Tom >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >> >>>>>>>> Von: Mark Struberg [[email protected]] >> > Gesendet: Montag, >> >>>>>> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: > [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: cdi-query >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> +1 great stuff to review and add them! >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> That would fit great into the > deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> LieGrue, >> >>>>>>>> strub >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir > <[email protected]> > >> To: >> >>>>>> [email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> Cc: >> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM >> >> Subject: Re: >> >>>>>> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this > would be a great thing to add! >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain > Manni-Bucau wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> just browsed >> >>>>>>> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>>> it is really amazing (a > spring-data CDI oriented). >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> it is currently based on solder > but since DS integrates a >> >>>>> lot of this >> >>>>>>> stuff >> >>>>>>>>>> i wonder if it could be integrated > in DS in a really >> >>>>> portable way? >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> - Romain >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >
