On 24 December 2017 at 14:23, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Sure, but the question remains :P It just adds another one:
What I meant to suggest is:
if we agree that we're not going to bother with publishing javadocs
for "internal", we're effectively getting rid of one of the 3
"groups"; one to go..
P
Sanne, have you had a chance to look at this? If not, I may have to just
disable Java 9 from Travis
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 8:37 PM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> I worked on getting Travis CI set up on ORM for reasons discussed here
> previously. But I am running into a really strange error when I e
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Sanne Grinovero
wrote:
> Any dependency injection framework will have some capability to define
> the graph of dependencies across components, and such graph could be
> very complex, with details only known to the framework.
>
> I don't think we can solve the inte
Scott, how would we register a listener for this event? The problem we
have had with most CDI "listeners" so far is that they are non-contextual,
meaning there has been no way to link that back to a specific
SessionFactory.. If I can register this listener with a reference back to
the Sessionfact
I agree with Andrea.
On 12/29/2017 09:14 AM, andrea boriero wrote:
> +1 for filtering out internal packages.
>
> not a strong opinion on grouping
>
> On 24 December 2017 at 14:23, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> Sure, but the question remains :P It just adds another one:
>>
>>
>>1. Should interna
This is already what I have done over a week ago ;)
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:43 PM Chris Cranford wrote:
> I agree with Andrea.
>
>
> On 12/29/2017 09:14 AM, andrea boriero wrote:
>
> +1 for filtering out internal packages.
>
> not a strong opinion on grouping
>
> On 24 December 2017 at 14:23, S
The legacy ORM jobs (5.1-based ones at least) are getting triggered when
they should not be. Generally they all show they the run is triggered by a
"SCM change", but it does not show any changes. The underlying problem
(although I am at a loss as to why) is that there has indeed been SCM
changes
2017-12-28 18:07 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole :
> Gunnar, back to the original discussion...
>
> I asked you about this specifically in Paris and you responded "no" - but
> reading info I have found online seems to indicate that it is indeed
> perfectly valid to build with Java 9 and include a module-
2017-12-29 21:34 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole :
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 5:33 AM Steve Ebersole
> wrote:
>
>>
>> * When using ByteBuddy as the byte code provider, I still needed to have
>>> Javassist around, as it's used in ClassFileArchiveEntryHandler. I
>>> understand that eventually this should b
ASM is a completely different model though, unless the part you think could
be used here is different.
I did say though that we could leverage Jandex for this part. The problem
(iiuc) there though is that Jandex would require all classes to be indexed
- we could not just ask it to index a particu
Of course I meant "continuing with Javassist..." :P
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 3:50 PM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> ASM is a completely different model though, unless the part you think
> could be used here is different.
>
> I did say though that we could leverage Jandex for this part. The problem
> (ii
11 matches
Mail list logo
