Hi Max,

We're still discussing it. Adding Sande to this Thread.


Em 21/09/13 19:39, Max Rydahl Andersen escreveu:

im just realizing that if these bom's are not going to be in maven central, the archetypes also can't be in central...meaning we can't use them fron JBoss Central since then users would need to add a some mvn repo to even see these first....that doesn't sound like the user experience we would want or am i missing something (i.e. will we push archetypes to mvn central but they will generate projects that requires more than mvn central ?)


/max

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:24:56PM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote:

Hi all,

This email has the intention of clarifying some issues that are appearing as a result of the "new organization" changes, particularly around BOMs and their versions.

As we now focus on the_products_, we changed the version of the BOMs and Quickstarts to follow the target_product_  version: EAP 6.2.0, WFK 2.4.0, JDG 6.2.0, etc.

Since the  j/boss-javaee-6.0-with-*/  BOMs are now target to its_products_  versions, we work with the_products_  teams to ensure the right dependency versions of components are used.

Until we get the Beta or GA versions of these BOMs, we host "developer releases" (using/-build-x/  suffix) onhttp://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/
We expect to move this repo in the newt few months, to a nexus managed instance

When the product is build, the version will be changed from/-build-x/  suffix to/-redhat-1/  suffix and when a beta or GA is released will be inhttp://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ orhttp://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all

We don't intend to sync thehttp://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/  to Maven Central.

Ok! But some_project_  teams are asking how they should treat their quickstarts given the fact that the_project_  delivers their quickstarts but the BOMs will not be available on Maven Central.

We're recommending the_project_  team that have their own_project_  BOMs using their_project_  GAV. Taking Richfaces and Arquillian as example:

- Richfaces provides their own BOM under the following GAV: org.richfaces:richfaces-bom:4.3.2.Final
- Arquillian provides their own BOM under the following GAV: org.jboss.arquillian:arquillian-bom: 1.1.0.Final

- Richfaces is used on WFK 2.4.0 so we wrap the Richfaces BOM under the following GAV:/org.jboss.bom.wfk: jboss-javaee-6.0-with-richfaces:2.4.0-/... ->https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-wfk-boms/blob/master/jboss-javaee-6.0-with-richfaces/pom.xml
- Arquillian is also used on EAP 6.2.0 so we wrap the Arquillian BOM under the following GAV:/org.jboss.bom.eap: jboss-javaee-6.0-with-tools:6.2.0/-.... ->
https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-boms/blob/master/jboss-javaee-6.0-with-tools/pom.xml

As conclusion, we're suggesting that upstream_project_  create BOMs, and then the_product_  can wrap this BOM under the/org.jboss.bom.<_product_>: jboss-javaee-6.0-with-<_project_>:<_product_-version>/. This allows for easy identification of which BOM and version to use for both upstream and_product_."

If you have any further question on how it works, please let me know.

Please, forward to anyone you think that maybe interested in this email content.

Thanks

-- 
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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev