I think leaving proxy support to full interface only for now makes sense,
we can enrich this further in another release.  How about we close 113 as a
reduced scope and open a new issue for remaining items?  I see you already
did some Gerhard, but we still have abstract classes as a case as well.

Gerhard, can you also comment on 288? Do we need this in 0.4 or can it wait?

Romain, I didn't quite get you.  Are you saying you're on hold on this one
(dependent on something?).

Does anyone believe we need Seam XML Config in 0.4? (DS-269 to 272).  I'd
prefer to move it.

For DS-105, it looks like consensus is to keep it since it's needed for
older Weld versions. If so can we close as will not fix?

Jason P - Can you look at DS-132/134? Do we need these?  There are other
catch like issues out there.  Are they needed?

Mark S - You have 12 issues assigned to you :/

BTW I created a new filter - only open issues [1]

John

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323789


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi
>
> DS-60: we are a bunch o wait after it
>
> DS-113: think we can push partial bean to another release and keep
> interface handling for this iteration (well if you import asm part right
> now it can work but then the question will be which shade version? a proxy
> as in cxf?....)
>
> other are not blocker IMO
>
>
> *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*
>
>
>
> 2013/3/25 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>
>
> > hi john,
> >
> > @ examples:
> > we haven't discussed what our goal is here
> >
> > @ DS-60
> > imo we should do it for 0.5 (and release 0.5 >short< after 0.4)
> >
> > @ DS-113
> > we have to change the proxy-lib and move it to an own module
> > (i'll create the module today)
> >
> > @ DS-263
> > not needed, but nice to have -> +1
> > (you can have a look at the setup we used in codi for it to know what you
> > need)
> >
> > @ DS-278
> > i re-opened it because we should find a better approach imo.
> > however, it isn't a real blocker
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/25 John D. Ament <[email protected]>
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Based on the flurry of threads, I wanted to help get things started to
> > move
> > > towards a 0.4 release.  I created the filter at [1] to show our current
> > > progress.
> > >
> > > We currently have 50 issues fixed in 0.4, with 27 unresolved for the
> > > release.  Some of these issues stick out, with me thinking that we've
> > > actually completed them but perhaps need some finalization (note: I'll
> > use
> > > the abbreviation DS for the DELTASPIKE key in JIRA which is TL;DR)
> > >
> > > DS-306 - I see examples.  Do we need more?
> > > DS-60 - I believe we have started integrating CDI Query.  Should this
> > have
> > > spawned child tasks?
> > > DS-113 - Gerhard took the reigns on this one and apparently it works
> just
> > > like the Seam3 version.  Can this be closed?
> > >
> > >
> > > Some low hanging fruit:
> > >
> > > DS-263 - I was actually looking for something like this as well.  I've
> > been
> > > playing with JBoss modules a lot and think having a binary release
> would
> > > help add DS as a JBoss Module.  If this isn't complete, do we need it
> in
> > > 0.4?
> > >
> > > DS-278 - If not done, seems easy enough to add.
> > >
> > > DS-288 - Seems like another needed feature, but wasn't too difficult in
> > > either CODI or Seam3.
> > >
> > > DS-289 - Ironically, this one isn't even scheduled for 0.4 but is a
> > blocker
> > > for the release.  I'll update it as such.
> > >
> > > If you have something in the list below that shouldn't be (e.g. it's
> not
> > > needed for 0.4) we should get it rescheduled.  Since previously only
> 289
> > > was declared needed for 0.4 we should be looking at everything else.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323788
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to