jdf-site: Stacks page
by Rafael Benevides
Hi Pete, Sande, Jason and Marius,
These days I worked on JBoss Stacks page (
http://site-jdf.rhcloud.com/stack/stacks/ ) and that is ready to be
published.
I want to know if any of you have any updates (e.g. quickstarts,
ticketmonster, migration guides) the prevents me from publishing the
sandbox. It was not staged because Pete was using it.
My plan is to update on Friday, August 3rd (if I get access to
filemgmt.jboss.org until there ). Anyway my modifications was already
rebased on master branch at github
Thank you
--
Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Brazil
+55-61-9269-6576
Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com
12 years, 4 months
JBoss Stacks Beta5 and JDF-20
by Rafael Benevides
Hi all,
For Beta5 format it was added groupId and artifactId for Runtime to help
maven plugins to download a runtime.
In Beta5 format I have the intention to put the version control matrix
proposed on JDF-20 - https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JDF-20 on JBoss Stacks.
I have pushed a preview for Beta5 format here:
https://raw.github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/Beta5/fileformat.png and a
preview for version control matrix here:
https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/Beta5/matrix.yaml
Basically it brings some questions that I want to share with you:
- Should it be a separate file (stacks.yaml and matrix.yaml) ? - For
separate files we will need to join its strings content if need to
parse since matrix.yaml will have reference for artifacts and boms from
stacks.yaml
- Is there any other property that must have inserted/removed/updated on
artifacts structure ?
There are some considerations that we will need to move some quickstarts
to the new BOMs that was created (
https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jboss-bom) and this boms have to be
published and added to the stacks.yaml also.
--
Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Brazil
+55-61-9269-6576
Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com
12 years, 4 months
JBoss Stacks - Beta4
by Rafael Benevides
Hi All,
We need to update the Beta3 format of stacks.yaml
https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/Beta3/fileformat.png
There is a requirement that a Runtime (7.0.2) only permits certain
archetypes versions (7.0.2.CR2 for example).
So it's needed that we split archetypes and runtimes versions in another
data structure so the Runtime will reference the version and not the bom
or archetype directly.
The Beta4 proposed format is attached to this e-mail. If someone have
any other consideration, please feel free to make any comments
--
Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Brazil
+55-61-9269-6576
Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com
12 years, 5 months
Re: [jdf-dev] BOMs and archetypes for AS 7.0.2
by Rafael Benevides
Answering to jdf-dev list:
This leads me to think that we will need an extra metadata on runtimes
that is recommendedBomVersion and recommendedArchetypeVersion since the
recommendedVersion for a BOM (7.1.1.CR1) should not be valid in a 7.0.2
runtime context (7.0.2.CR2).
Right ?
Em 03-08-2012 08:29, Pete Muir escreveu:
> Hey
>
> Just realised that we should probably only list the Java EE 6 BOM for AS 7.0.2, as the others were all done for AS 7.1 (so not tested with 7.0.2).
>
> Also, for archetypes, we should probably list the EAR/WAR ones only, and 7.0.2.CR2 is a good choice.
12 years, 5 months
Re: [jdf-dev] BOMs and archetypes for AS 7.0.2
by Rafael Benevides
Ok.
I'll propose a Beta4 format.
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Muir [pmuir(a)redhat.com]
Received: sexta-feira, 03 ago 2012, 12:46
To: Rafael Benevides [benevides(a)redhat.com]
CC: jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: BOMs and archetypes for AS 7.0.2
+1
In fact, it would be nice if we could back-link this as well, so if someone selects the 7.1.1.CR1 archetype, they are told to use AS 7.1 or EAP but not EAP 6.0
On 3 Aug 2012, at 15:23, Rafael Benevides wrote:
> Answering to jdf-dev list:
>
> This leads me to think that we will need an extra metadata on runtimes that is recommendedBomVersion and recommendedArchetypeVersion since the recommendedVersion for a BOM (7.1.1.CR1) should not be valid in a 7.0.2 runtime context (7.0.2.CR2).
>
> Right ?
>
>
> Em 03-08-2012 08:29, Pete Muir escreveu:
>> Hey
>>
>> Just realised that we should probably only list the Java EE 6 BOM for AS 7.0.2, as the others were all done for AS 7.1 (so not tested with 7.0.2).
>>
>> Also, for archetypes, we should probably list the EAR/WAR ones only, and 7.0.2.CR2 is a good choice.
12 years, 5 months
