Do we already have a roadmap? I think we should define one by iteration (+handle a backlog if we want).
I can help on cdi query part if needed (jsf is still a bit too new for me). Le 24 mars 2013 18:49, "Gerhard Petracek" <[email protected]> a écrit : > hi john, > > we can't keep it currently (i'm also unhappy about it), because if only 2-3 > people help on a >regular< basis [1], you have to wait until they have > time. > it isn't only about unassigned issues. e.g. not that many help with writing > tests and examples, writing/reviewing javadoc and documentation. > > even the graduation process takes (very) long. > that might be a big blocker for some users. > at least codi had several users way before v1 (and for sure even more after > v1). > however, we would lose more users, if we release v1 which isn't ready. > > >imo< our goal for v1 should be >at least< everything (which we know > already) we need for improving the java-ee web-profile as well as a stable > api and spi. > > regards, > gerhard > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-deltaspike/contributors > > > > 2013/3/24 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > > I get you and think we agree behund words. My main issue is our 0.4 is > not > > ready to be released and still doesnt contain what users are waiting > for... > > > > When i spoke about > 1.0 just understand when last release answer basic > > needs > > Le 24 mars 2013 16:49, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit > : > > > > > Romain, > > > > > > I'm not sure what to tell you. One of our founding statements was > > release > > > early and often. I'm not sure why we haven't stuck to that. > > Personally, I > > > think we have failed to do that. We probably have too many features > in a > > > single release/ not much release planning/attempt to release everything > > as > > > one big release rather than more modular in nature. Those are just > > > thoughts. > > > > > > As I already stated, I don't want this in 0.4. But I don't think it's > > > appropriate to stick this in after 1.0, who knows when that will be. I > > > would love to see this in 0.5, already have prototypes working. My > > biggest > > > issue, as I was trying to raise in the other thread, is that when > people > > > look at the issue list out there, generally the candidates to work on > are > > > the unassigned issues. If 80% of what we have out there is assigned, > > then > > > it's assumed someone's work on it. If it's assigned to someone and > > they're > > > not working on it, that's probably an issue that needs to be addressed. > > As > > > far as I can tell, of the 10 unassigned issues out there, none of them > > are > > > comprehensible enough (other than the one I already worked on) to be > > worked > > > through. So I'm not sure, maybe it's an issue of perception, but I > don't > > > think we have a large pile of open work for future releases. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Sure but we cant start everything, finishing nothing...our rare > > releases > > > > are already a pain for users. > > > > > > > > We need jsf + if possible cdi query for 0.4 IMO then i agree rest > > helpers > > > > are a must have (some tools around jaxrs client part can be great) > > etc... > > > > Le 24 mars 2013 16:13, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a > > écrit > > > : > > > > > > > > > Romain, > > > > > > > > > > My only issue with this is that I don't think we've mapped out what > > the > > > > > common use cases are (at least based on the email I sent out). If > > > we're > > > > > favoring JSF, we're neglecting the growing population of REST APIs > > for > > > > rich > > > > > javascript clients (from UI). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > yes but JMS is clearly not the most used > > > > > > > > > > > > can't we push it for the > 1.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > users really wait the first 1.0 to use DS and adding JMS now > simply > > > > looks > > > > > > like forgetting more common use cases > > > > > > > > > > > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > > > > > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > > > > > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > > > > > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > > > > > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > > > > > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi @ all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imo it's more a basic question. > > > > > > > if we do it for jms 2, we also have to (/should) do it for > other > > > > > > > specifications like bv 1.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/21 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ill rephrase a bit. I m rather -0 about it and -1 since a lot > > of > > > > > others > > > > > > > > stuff are needed before. > > > > > > > > Le 21 mars 2013 22:50, "Arne Limburg" < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should find out if one can simply use a JMS 2.0 > > > implementation > > > > > and > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > > > it into an deployment. If that will be possible, we would > not > > > > need > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > implement it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Arne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 21.03.13 22:34 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I tend to lean towards +1 simply because EE-7 containers > > will > > > > take > > > > > > > > > >another year (or 2) to become used in projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I just think we should first close a few tasks before we > > open > > > > new > > > > > > > ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >LieGrue, > > > > > > > > > >strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > >> From: John D. Ament <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > >> To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> Cc: > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:09 PM > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: DISCUSS DeltaSpike-324 > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Romain, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Generally, I'm mixed about these. However I think > there's > > > > some > > > > > > > pretty > > > > > > > > > >> good > > > > > > > > > >> benefits. For an application developer, maybe none of > the > > > > other > > > > > > > JMS 2 > > > > > > > > > >> features are useful to you (the bulk of the feature went > > > into > > > > > CDI > > > > > > > > > >>support, > > > > > > > > > >> app server integration, and documentation clean up). > You > > > > don't > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > >> move off of TomEE 1.5.x to TomEE Y (which could support > > Java > > > > EE > > > > > 7 > > > > > > > Web > > > > > > > > > >> Profile) due to downtime in your application. There's > > also > > > > lead > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > >> required to impelement JMS 2/Java EE 7 features in your > > > > > > application > > > > > > > > > >>server, > > > > > > > > > >> but perhaps you don't want to or need to wait for the > > whole > > > > > thing. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> This solution would be DS oriented, I believe requires > > > > > > > > TransactionScoped > > > > > > > > > >> (which could require the transaction classes be moved > away > > > > from > > > > > > > > > >> persistence) to operate properly. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> There's also the case of using DeltaSpike as your > CDI-JMS > > > > > > > > > >>implementation if > > > > > > > > > >> you were a JMS implementer. I haven't reached out to > > > > > communities > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > >>as > > > > > > > > > >> Apache ActiveMQ or HornetQ to see input here; I know the > > > > current > > > > > > > > > >>GlassFish > > > > > > > > > >> implementation calls their lower level directly (and not > > by > > > > > > wrapping > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> JMS APIs). > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> John > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > > > > > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> i'm globally -1 for redoing something which will exist > > > > > somewhere > > > > > > > > else > > > > > > > > > >>> (basically if somebody wants JavaEE just let him use > > > JavaEE, > > > > > CDI > > > > > > > > > >> doesn't > > > > > > > > > >>> need the full stack IMO). Was my point for JPA, more > > again > > > > on > > > > > > JMS. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> It is great to add feature before the specs not once > it > > is > > > > (or > > > > > > > > almost) > > > > > > > > > >>> done. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Maybe i didnt fully get what you want to do so maybe > > share > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > >>>pastebin to > > > > > > > > > >>> be sure we speak about the same stuff. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> *Romain Manni-Bucau* > > > > > > > > > >>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau < > https://twitter.com/rmannibucau > > >* > > > > > > > > > >>> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > > > > > > > > > >>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > > > > > > > > > >>> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > > > > > > > > > >>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> 2013/3/21 John D. Ament <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > All, > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I'd like to open the floor to discussion for porting > > > JMS 2 > > > > > > > > > >> features to > > > > > > > > > >>> > DeltaSpike, specifically the features that added > some > > > CDI > > > > > > > > > >>>capabilities > > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > > >>> > JMS. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Details of my rough proposal are here: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-324 > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Importing these features start to deprecate > > > functionality > > > > in > > > > > > > Seam > > > > > > > > > >>>JMS > > > > > > > > > >>> > (ideal). These features would give access to an API > > > very > > > > > > > similar > > > > > > > > > >>>to > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > >>> > JMS2 API around CDI injection. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Some limitations: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > - This would not be a JMS implementation, simply an > > > > inspired > > > > > > > > > >>>interface > > > > > > > > > >>> for > > > > > > > > > >>> > use in Java EE 6/JMS 1.x that leveraged CDI > injection > > > > based > > > > > on > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> rules > > > > > > > > > >>> > for CDI injection of these interfaces. We would > bring > > > in > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > >>>similar > > > > > > > > > >>> > annotations that supported the injection of the > three > > > > target > > > > > > > > types. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > - Cannot use the exact interface, since the > interface > > > > > > implements > > > > > > > > > >>> > AutoCloseable which is a Java SE 7 interface. > > > DeltaSpike > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > Java > > > > > > > > > >>>SE > > > > > > > > > >> 6 > > > > > > > > > >>> > for a compiler. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > - Internally these would have to use the current JMS > > > > > > interfaces > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > >>> > connection, session. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > - Testing would be feasible but require a full Java > EE > > > > > > container > > > > > > > > > >>>(e.g. > > > > > > > > > >> no > > > > > > > > > >>> > testing in Weld/OWB directly) that supported > > deployment > > > of > > > > > > > > > >> destinations > > > > > > > > > >>> at > > > > > > > > > >>> > runtime. Since this doesn't touch MDBs we can > > manually > > > > read > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > >>> > destination. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > John > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
