@Gerhard: the point about proxy was i thought it was not straight forward since some people will not want to bring any additional lib for it (because they use only interfaces and proxy libs can conflcts). Wonder if handling it with a dep optional couldn't do the trick too.
*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* 2013/3/26 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > @ romain: > imo it doesn't make sense to remove something (and add it later on again), > if it's just a matter of few hours (to do it immediately). > anybody is welcome to work on DS-333. > > @ DS-288 > it's almost done and as i mentioned earlier i'll finish it once DS-289 is > done. > (yes we need it for 0.4) > > @ xml-config > afair we had an agreement already, but nobody worked on it. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2013/3/26 John D. Ament <[email protected]> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
