Hello, I'm a DS user (and I'm not the only one I think).
Just to let you know how I use it (if this can help someone) : DS 0.3 with a mix of CODI and 2/3 classes from Seam [1]. Quite happy for now (I'm using DS Exception handling - with custom REST and JSF extensions from Seam 3, Config). From CODI, I use WindowScoped, ConversationScoped and ViewAccessScoped. From Seam 3, I use a modified version JSF ExceptionHandling (to integrate to DS Exception Handling), UIInputContainer (completely optional, but I like it), and REST Exception Handling. Only JSF ExceptionHandling is really mandatory IMO. For the rest of my application CMT EJB Stateless (tx) and @PersistenceContext (no extended). I'll remove CODI when CODI scopes are ported to DS which should be DS 0.4 if I'm correct. Best regards, [1] Most notably : https://github.com/seam/faces/tree/develop/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss/seam/faces/exception ________________________________ De : Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> À : [email protected] Envoyé le : Dimanche 24 mars 2013 19h33 Objet : Re: DISCUSS DeltaSpike-324 I did a JUG this week with a part on DS and was the main question asked with those words "when will it be usable?"...kind of sad. Releasing even in alpha/beta is better IMO. Le 24 mars 2013 19:29, "Jason Porter" <[email protected]> a écrit : > +1 glad I'm not the only one asking for a roadmap now. > — > Sent from Mailbox for iPhone > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >>
