I was thinking a little bit more about the naming.
Actually we use
org.jboss.bom.<product-code>:jboss-javaee-6.0-with-<project>.
Examples
- org.jboss.bom.eap:jboss-javaee-6.0-with-security
- org.jboss.bom.eap:jboss-javaee-6.0-with-tools
- org.jboss.bom.brms:jboss-javaee-6.0-with-drools
- org.jboss.bom.jdg:jboss-javaee-6.0-with-infinispan.
My proposal is to return the groupId to org.jboss.bom and use
org.jboss.bom:jboss-javaee-7.0-<product-code>
Examples:
- org.jboss.bom:jboss-javaee-7.0-eap
- org.jboss.bom:jboss-javaee-7.0-brms
- org.jboss.bom:jboss-javaee-7.0-jdg
On 4/10/15 07:38, Sande Gilda wrote:
It would certainly simplify things, not only for the quickstarts,
but
also for documentation.. :-)
On 04/09/2015 11:46 AM, Paul Gier wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'd like to propose that we consolidate our current JBoss EAP BOMs into
> a single BOM. We currently have several smallish BOMs with names like
> "jboss-javaee-6.0-with-hibernate" and
"jboss-javaee-6.0-with-security".
> Instead I think we could make a single BOM which contains all public
> API jar versions and is used throughout the quickstarts whenever an API
> is needed.
>
> The specs project would continue to provide a JavaEE specs BOM for
> simple use cases. And the eap BOM project would provide the JavaEE APIs
> and public EAP specific APIs. Note that using this BOM in a quickstart
> would not cause the quickstart to download "all" the API jars, the BOM
> only manages the versions of the jars which have already been added to
> the dependency tree.
>
> The advantage of this is easier maintenance and a simpler configuration
> for users who currently use more than one of our current BOMs in their
> application.
>
> WDYT?
> _______________________________________________
> jbossdeveloper mailing list
> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper
_______________________________________________
jbossdeveloper mailing list
jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper