Re: [jdf-dev] Stacks 1.1 format proposal

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 >>> >