Em 03/04/13 18:05, Max Rydahl Andersen escreveu:
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
>> 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
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 ?
I liked framework! We will know that it's a seam
framework or drools
framework by the runtime name. Or we can add a framework-type label like
we have today for runtime-category=server where we have runtime-type: AS
>>> 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
>>> 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.