Re: [jdf-dev] BOM to JBDS

On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Julian Coleman <jcoleman(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > EAP transitive dependencies aren't necessarily correct in the POM's - > the > artifacts referenced might be missing from the public repository . > You > *must* use the IP and EAP BOM's to override POM transitive > dependencies. > Also, from FSW 6.1.0 onward, dependencies in our POM's won't > necessarily > be available either. This is the first time I've heard of this requirement for user applications. It certainly makes sense if the POM versions are incorrect. I guess one question I have is why we don't make sure the POM versions are correct instead of requiring a BOM? I think an application BOM is valuable anyway, so not arguing against it, just wondering if we are putting duct tape on a broken window here.

> So, the fix is to make sure that a BOM is configured in the project. > How > do we get this into the current versions, and how do we synchronise > this > for the next versions (where I assume that we'll have the > -with-switchyard > and -with-s-ramp, etc. developer BOM's.)? Unfortunately, we can't get it into current versions because the SwitchYard application BOM doesn't exist. We can get it into future versions, but that's something Kevin will need to work into the ERD for FSW 6.1 as this is really only a problem with productized artifacts. We don't hit this in community.