On 21/03/2014, at 22.05, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: We can build it together. As long as Pete Muir approves it, I can create a new repo on github https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-fsw-boms to host org.jboss.bom.fsw:jboss-javaee-6.0-with-switchyard:<next-switchyard-version>. I can put a skeleton there, so you can adjust swithchyward BOMs as needed (managed dependencies GAVs). Please, let me know if this works for you. Thanks Em 21/03/14 13:05, Julian Coleman escreveu: > Hi, > > What's the process for adding the developer BOM's to JBDS? Looking at: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079463 > > the reason that it happens is that the project is created without the BOM > to version manage the transitive dependencies. This will be a requirement > for future platform builds because the POM transitive list might not be > shipped in the maven repository - only the BOM's will have the correct list. > > So, we need to make sure that a (e.g.) SwitchYard project starts with the > (e.g.) jboss-javaee-6.0-with-switchyard BOM, otherwise it's not going to > build. > > Thanks, > > J _______________________________________________ jdf-dev mailing list jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev

Agreed. As a separate topic, we do need to sort out BOMs for FSW, but that won’t make them get magically used :-D On 22 Mar 2014, at 04:32, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something but this issue is not about missing a > place to host boms is it ? but hat the switchyard project wizard is > not creating the projects with a proper Pom.xml. > > I thought this was done a while ago since I reported similar issue > before the New Years. I'll need to dig that one out when I get back > to laptop. > > Lete know if I'm missing something. > > Julian have you talked with rob Cernich about it yet ? > > /max (sent from my phone) > > >> On 21/03/2014, at 22.05, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >> We can build it together. >> >> As long as Pete Muir approves it, I can create a new repo on github >> https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-fsw-boms to host >> >> org.jboss.bom.fsw:jboss-javaee-6.0-with-switchyard:<next-switchyard-version>. >> >> I can put a skeleton there, so you can adjust swithchyward BOMs as >> needed (managed dependencies GAVs). >> >> Please, let me know if this works for you. >> >> Thanks >> >> Em 21/03/14 13:05, Julian Coleman escreveu: >>> Hi, >>> >>> What's the process for adding the developer BOM's to JBDS? Looking >>> at: >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079463 >>> >>> the reason that it happens is that the project is created without >>> the BOM >>> to version manage the transitive dependencies. This will be a >>> requirement >>> for future platform builds because the POM transitive list might >>> not be >>> shipped in the maven repository - only the BOM's will have the >>> correct list. >>> >>> So, we need to make sure that a (e.g.) SwitchYard project starts >>> with the >>> (e.g.) jboss-javaee-6.0-with-switchyard BOM, otherwise it's not >>> going to >>> build. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> J >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jdf-dev mailing list >> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev > > _______________________________________________ > jdf-dev mailing list > jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev

I don't think it's unfriendly. It simply adds SwitchYard dependencies to the user's pom. It's up to the user to have their repositories configured correctly so the dependencies can be resolved. In this case, it looks like a transitive dependency is missing from the configured repositories.

That was how it looked to me. Something in the dependency chain requires that GAV, but it isn't available from any of the repositories, which is why I redirected the issue to the build guys.

This is the first time I've heard of this requirement for user applications. It certainly makes sense if the POM versions are incorrect. I guess one question I have is why we don't make sure the POM versions are correct instead of requiring a BOM? I think an application BOM is valuable anyway, so not arguing against it, just wondering if we are putting duct tape on a broken window here.

Unfortunately, we can't get it into current versions because the SwitchYard application BOM doesn't exist. We can get it into future versions, but that's something Kevin will need to work into the ERD for FSW 6.1 as this is really only a problem with productized artifacts. We don't hit this in community.

The requirements for JDF community quick starts have the same requirement afaik so once you start doing JDF style quick starts you should be hitting this

> Here are the issues I could dig out related to this: > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SWITCHYARD-1701 - hardcoding of > jboss.org repo in generated pom.xml (fixed) > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SWITCHYARD-1824 - integrate with JBoss > Integration BOM (fixed - in November) > > Those two I thought was done and thus should be working - but maybe the > BOM's changed or the plugin has not been updated or something ? My understanding is that there is no BOM for FSW/SwitchYard. > > Rob - do you know what the status is for SY project wizard to be BOM and > maven.enterprise.redhat.com friendly ? > My understanding from previous questions on this was that it already was > in place or being worked on. I don't think it's unfriendly. It simply adds SwitchYard dependencies to the user's pom. It's up to the user to have their repositories configured correctly so the dependencies can be resolved. In this case, it looks like a transitive dependency is missing from the configured repositories. > > I can see you already responded on > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079463 but seems like it > boils down to borked > maven dependencies ? (i.e. the wizard actually targets a BOM but the > repo does not work with it) That was how it looked to me. Something in the dependency chain requires that GAV, but it isn't available from any of the repositories, which is why I redirected the issue to the build guys. > > /max > >> Agreed. As a separate topic, we do need to sort out BOMs for FSW, but >> that won’t make them get magically used :-D >> >> On 22 Mar 2014, at 04:32, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Maybe I'm missing something but this issue is not about missing a >>> place to host boms is it ? but hat the switchyard project wizard is >>> not creating the projects with a proper Pom.xml. >>> >>> I thought this was done a while ago since I reported similar issue >>> before the New Years. I'll need to dig that one out when I get back >>> to laptop. >>> >>> Lete know if I'm missing something. >>> >>> Julian have you talked with rob Cernich about it yet ? >>> >>> /max (sent from my phone) >>> >>> >>>> On 21/03/2014, at 22.05, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> We can build it together. >>>> >>>> As long as Pete Muir approves it, I can create a new repo on github >>>> https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-fsw-boms to host >>>> >>>> org.jboss.bom.fsw:jboss-javaee-6.0-with-switchyard:switchyard-version>. >>>> >>>> I can put a skeleton there, so you can adjust swithchyward BOMs as >>>> needed (managed dependencies GAVs). >>>> >>>> Please, let me know if this works for you. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Em 21/03/14 13:05, Julian Coleman escreveu: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> What's the process for adding the developer BOM's to JBDS? Looking >>>>> at: >>>>> >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079463 >>>>> >>>>> the reason that it happens is that the project is created without >>>>> the BOM >>>>> to version manage the transitive dependencies. This will be a >>>>> requirement >>>>> for future platform builds because the POM transitive list might >>>>> not be >>>>> shipped in the maven repository - only the BOM's will have the >>>>> correct list. >>>>> >>>>> So, we need to make sure that a (e.g.) SwitchYard project starts >>>>> with the >>>>> (e.g.) jboss-javaee-6.0-with-switchyard BOM, otherwise it's not >>>>> going to >>>>> build. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> J >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jdf-dev mailing list >>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jdf-dev mailing list >>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev > > > /max > http://about.me/maxandersen >

Hi, > Search for "${version.sun.jaxb}" : > http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/org/jboss/component/ma... > http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/org/jboss/component/ma... Right. But, the EAP 6.1.1 BOM is version 6.1.1.Final-redhat-61: http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/org/jboss/component/ma... and for EAP 6.1.1, the version is matched with the available artifact [*]. But, if you don't use the correct IP and EAP BOM's then your build is broken, as per the original bug report. Thanks, J [*] Note, that there are other bugs in the EAP 6.1.1 BOM's, but those were fixed up in the IP BOM for the artifacts that we needed to build FSW, DV, BPMS, BRMS. -- Red Hat Newcastle upon Tyne

> Rob - do you know what the status is for SY project wizard to be BOM > and > maven.enterprise.redhat.com friendly ? > My understanding from previous questions on this was that it already > was > in place or being worked on. I don't think it's unfriendly. It simply adds SwitchYard dependencies to the user's pom.

On 24/03/2014, at 17.16, Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: I don't remember saying that a BOM wasn't important. Maybe check that email again. :-)