On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:00:05AM +0200, Fred Bricon wrote:
I probably missed it but where does it say the enterprise flag goes
away for archetypes?
thats in the other thread(s) about changing the way things are released/versioned.
Here it was suggested archetypes would be productized similar to quickstarts, thus
there would be forks/duplicates instead of one version we could use and then toggle
between one or the other target..thus no enterprise flag.
At least thats how I understood the proposal and we should work with Rafael on
that.
/max
Le 12/08/2013 16:52, Max Rydahl Andersen a écrit :
>
>On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:16:10PM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I'm resurrecting this subject because Forge Team started to
>>brainstorm about the Stacks Add-on to Forge.
>>
>>Max,
>>
>>Do you have some thoughts/considerations on this:
>>
>>- Change format (getting the opportunity of repo location change)
>>vs
>>- Still using the same format with workarounds
>
>I would like that Fred B. takes a look at this and give his feedback
>since he been doing most of the license/repositoryurl workarounds we
>need.
>
>But from top of my head:
>
>I don't see how stacks 1.0 can change location (i.e. url) since that
>will break JBDS 7.0/JBT 4.1 users. Are you really talking about a
>physical move, or simply where you would out the "next" version ?
>The 1.0 url is stuck and should stay there for years from what I can
>see.
>
>About "rename licenses to metdata"...I never realized those names
>were tied to element defined as licenses. Shouldn't it be licenses
>AND releaseversions or something ? what other metadata is needed
>here ? ...and if it is just to avoid repeating it is this just like
>"entities" like in a DTD ?
>About "repositoryUrl and extrarepositories" to bomversion then this
>seem to be a variation on how we in eclipse decides wether we need
>to add something to the users settings.xml or not ? In that case
>then repositoryurl/extrarepositories are not the only information
>relevant. Its more relevant to know which key artifacts to look for.
>We added that to our own examples metadata - Fred knows more.
>
>Then based on the availability of these artifaacts we either warn or
>not. If a warning we then suggest to add
>maven.enterprise.redhat.com/techpreview/all to the
>~/.m2/settings.xml. We do *not* add invidivual repositories (like
>EAP600 and EAP601) to users settings nor pom.xml - that would be bad
>form IMO. In any case - I don't think repositoryurl and
>extrarepositories are good on its own - needs more info.
>
>My biggest gotcha with upcoming changes is how the tools can/should
>cope with archetypes not having enterprise flag anymore. That at
>least from where I'm looking changes the workflow we need to provide
>to the user since we just starts with user requesting "Create a
>JavaEE Web app" ...and how do we ensure the archetypes stay
>consistent (before just a simple flag) now its spread between
>multiple repositories/archetype versions.
>
>
>/max
>
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Em 12/07/13 10:47, Rafael Benevides escreveu:
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>As part of the "new organization" plan, it's a good time to
>>>update stacks format since it will be hosted on the new github
>>>organization.
>>>I've analyzed the changes need and attached a Stacks 1.1
>>>proposal to see if everyone agrees on that or if should we keep
>>>using 1.0 format
>>>
>>>Changes from 1.0 to 1.1
>>>
>>> - Rename Licenses to Metadata
>>>
>>> Justification: I've been using Licenses today as an metadata
>>> section to avoid repeating metadatas like version,
>>> repositories, licenses, etc:
>>>https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/1.0.0.Final/stacks.yaml#L21-L34
>>>
>>> Workaround: Leave it as it is
>>>
>>> - add repositoryURL and extraRepositories to BomVersion.
>>>
>>> Justification: I've been using labels to to tag what
>>> repositories are Required:
>>>https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/1.0.0.Final/stacks.yaml#L441
>>>
>>> - Some BOMs needs more than one repo as JPP ( JPP is built on
>>> top of EAP 6.0.1, but it is using RichFaces from WFK 2.1.0
>>> that is built on top of EAP 6.0.0)
>>>
>>> Workaround: Create an standard tag called *repositories* and
>>> add every non maven central repository required.
>>>
>>>So I'd like to here your thoughts about it and analyze possible
>>>impacts on this format change.
>>>OBS.: Remember that stacks 1.0 repo is planned to be moved to
>>>jboss-developer github organization. So it's a good change to
>>>update it. The 1.0 and 1.1 should coexist for a while and maybe
>>>stacks-client should have a "migration" feature to permit a
>>>smooth transition.
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>jdf-dev mailing list
>>>jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
>>