Re: [jdf-dev] Stacks 1.1 format proposal

Perhaps we should highlight or re-iterate the goals we want to achieve with the JDF Stacks? It sounds to me like we are talking about several different use-cases that are similar but not exactly the same. I will explain the Forge viewpoint / what I understand the requirements to be and hopefully we can clear things up a bit. From the Forge standpoint this feature request from pete, a long time ago, is what we have assumed the stacks project is designed to address: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-378 - Is this language still correct, or has the intention of this JIRA issue changed? Basically what I understand this to mean is:

1. User selects runtime in Forge (EAP6) - What does this mean exactly? Does this require using a BOM in the project, or does it mean simply resolving the BOM dependencies and using that information to choose version information?

2. User is no longer prompted for Versions for supported Product/Technology stacks. If all we are doing is selecting a BOM to add to the project, then this is easy, but I was under the impression that there was something more to this, e.g: Archetype selection, Project BOM selection, Project Dependency Selection.. etc.. . If that is the case, what am I missing? What exactly do you want Forge (and JBDS) to do?

Thanks, Lincoln ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Fred Bricon" <fbricon(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Peter Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Lincoln Baxter" <lbaxter(a)redhat.com&gt;, "George Gastaldi" <ggastald(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:31:32 AM Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] Stacks 1.1 format proposal Em 20/08/13 07:46, Max Rydahl Andersen escreveu: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:55:17AM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote: >> Ha! >> >> We just talked about that on today's meeting! One more reason to >> update stacks format ;) > yes, I think this has merrit but if I grok the updated version model > won't there > be a 1-N mapping here ? Yes. There'll be 1 runtime to N archetypes as it is today: https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/1.0.0.Final/stacks.yaml#L1547... and https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/1.0.0.Final/stacks.yaml#L1448... > i.e. JavaEE project archetype will exist in multiple versions, > community version for wildfly 7, then EAP 6 version, soon wildfly 8 ? Yes. > Also JavaEE project will need to target different runtimes x different > specs (for now JavaEE 6 but JavaEE 7 will be there soon). > > >> Em 19/08/13 11:31, Fred Bricon escreveu: >>> We could treat enterprise versions the same way we currently treat >>> "blank" versions. >>> i.e. the default (community) archetype would have an enterprise >>> attribute pointing at the corresponding archetype. >>> See >>> https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/1.0.0.Final/stacks.yaml#L1131 >>> for instance. >>> >>> >>> Le 16/08/2013 10:17, Max Rydahl Andersen a écrit : >>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 09:42:32AM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>> Em 14/08/13 06:10, Max Rydahl Andersen escreveu: >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:06:43AM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>>>> You're right Max. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That was the proposal. And we should think a little bit more >>>>>>> about the workflow since the plan is to change Archetypes GAV >>>>>>> to: org.jboss.archetypes.eap: >>>>>>> jboss-javaee6-webapp-ear-archetype:6.1.0-redhat-X >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that the "product focus" idea is to have this EAP >>>>>>> archetypes as the default of "Create a Java EE XXX app..." >>>>>>> (without enterprise flag) but my concern is about the setup of >>>>>>> EAP repository setup. >>>>>> That part is the smallest problem ;) We already support it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try create an enterprise archetype in JBDS while running with >>>>>> ~/.m2/settings.xml that does >>>>>> *not* have access to the enterprise artifacts. We'll warn and >>>>>> guide you to add maven.repository url) >>>>>> >>>>>> We do that based on a list of key artifacts we check - this is >>>>>> currently outside stacks.yml, >>>>>> but could probably make sense to add this bit of info so other >>>>>> than jbds can do similar things. >>>>>> >>>>>> My main concern is how to find out which archetypes that matches >>>>>> and how to toggle/manage them. >>>>> Shouldn't this new GAV change help you to find out ? >>>> I would rather not rely on GAV to decide that if can be avoided. >>>> >>>> But your suggestion is that the group "org.jboss.archetypes.eap" >>>> decides it - >>>> which would be the "non-product" version ? there is no 1-to-1 mapping. >>>> >>>> Thing is that we loose the ability to toggle when the mvn wizard is >>>> running - the decision have to be made upfront. >>>> >>>> But I think we'll just have to drop that "feature" and force users >>>> to know more upfront - >>>> possibly in the case no runtime is known give them a choice of >>>> possible archetypes for JavaEE ? >>>> >>>> Fred - do you forsee issues/concerns ? >>>> >>>> /max >>>> >>>>>> /max >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I could be wrong but that's is how I understand that part of the >>>>>>> plan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Em 13/08/13 10:23, Max Rydahl Andersen escreveu: >>>>>>>> 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