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.

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


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.


Do you have some thoughts/considerations on this:

- Change format (getting the opportunity of repo location change)
- 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 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.



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:

      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:

      - 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

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at

jdf-dev mailing list