Added link to spec, removed contents that is in spec and out of date #169
Conversation
| * Status: *new* | ||
| * Decision Notes: | ||
| https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!topic/microprofile/jKFu-IS_U90[Discussion | ||
| thread topic with background and covering the design] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for catching the out-of-date material and removing it. I agree with removing the above, however, removing what follows after this would leave us with an empty doc on the main page, so I think it would be better to just update more specific out-of-date wording. I'll add some review comments below attempting to do that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought that initially too, except we do have a link to the rendered spec so it's easy to get to the info, and whatever we duplicate here will always end up out-of-date.
I think this file should concentrate on things that are not in the spec.
A short intro of a single paragraph should be fine, though.
| Introduction | ||
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ||
|
|
||
| The proposal introduces APIs for obtaining CompletableFutures that are |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can change "The proposal" to "This specification"
| Builders | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| It shall be possible to build instances of ManagedExecutor and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"It shall be possible to ..." can change to, "With MicroProfile Context Propagation, you can ..."
This could be enough to fix #161.
I added a badge to the rendered spec, and removed all the outdated content that is in the spec.
Do you guys think we need more text in the README?