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

On 10 Apr 2015, at 10:03, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: I was never a big fan of the separate BOM's but I recall that one of the reasons for this was to allow JDF/WFK quoickstarts to move a bit faster/independent without waiting for the full overall BOM pom to be ready ? Will that no longer be an issue ? /max > 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 /max http://about.me/maxandersen _______________________________________________ jbossdeveloper mailing list jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

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

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

On 10 Apr 2015, at 15:28, Rafael Benevides wrote: > 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 unless there are small tiny differences between these three this seems wrong to leave the actual difference to be in the qualifier of the version. Having the group artefact be different seem to be the right approach (at least following standard maven conventions ?) /max http://about.me/maxandersen

On 10 Apr 2015, at 15:28, Rafael Benevides wrote: > 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 unless there are small tiny differences between these three this seems wrong to leave the actual difference to be in the qualifier of the version. Having the group artefact be different seem to be the right approach (at least following standard maven conventions ?) /max http://about.me/maxandersen

On 13.4.2015 18:47, Paul Gier wrote: >>>> 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 >> >> unless there are small tiny differences between these three >> this seems wrong to leave the actual difference to be in the >> qualifier >> of the version. @Max, Rafael suggested to add a product string into artifact name not in version string as qualifier AFAIU.