Re: [jbosstools-dev] Regarding Stacks, Runtimes, and Remote Descriptors

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:48:05AM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>> We also got runtimes like drools and seam which aren't exactly >>> servers. >> In the classification we've used, Drools and Seam aren't runtimes, >> they are frameworks - the key difference being they are embedded >> into an existing app, and they don't require you to start the JVM. >> >> We can add this to stacks.yml, but I wonder whether runtimes is the >> right place to put it. > Yes. That's the kind of discussion that is recurrent :) - To refresh > what we discussed about it, we decided that we will use these > runtimes (drools, seam, etc) under runtimes section. On that > occasion (stacks cr1 release), we decided to created the > 'runtime-category' label to distinguish these runtime types. I'll > improve the tests to make this label required to all runtimes. We > need only to decide what 'runtime-category' to use for these other > "runtimes". frameworks or should we even add some more specific type i.e. drools-fwk, seam-fwk ? Or is there some other way we can know what specific type they are ?

>>> Also, can we have runtimes listed without having matching archetypes ? >>> i.e. if we would like to move all our existing info over to stacks.yml >>> instead of having it spread over we would need this runtime list >>> without >>> having matching bom's etc. > Yes. it's is possible to have a runtime with a 'empty list' of > archetypes and boms. The tests only complains about having an > archetype or a bom that isn't used on any runtime. great.