On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:48:05AM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote:
>>We also got runtimes like drools and seam which aren't
>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
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
>>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.