4:23 p.m.
Answering to jdf-dev list:
This leads me to think that we will need an extra metadata on runtimes
that is recommendedBomVersion and recommendedArchetypeVersion since the
recommendedVersion for a BOM (7.1.1.CR1) should not be valid in a 7.0.2
runtime context (7.0.2.CR2).
Right ?
Em 03-08-2012 08:29, Pete Muir escreveu:
Hey
Just realised that we should probably only list the Java EE 6 BOM for AS 7.0.2, as the
others were all done for AS 7.1 (so not tested with 7.0.2).
Also, for archetypes, we should probably list the EAR/WAR ones only, and 7.0.2.CR2 is a
good choice.
5:46 p.m.
New subject: BOMs and archetypes for AS 7.0.2
+1
In fact, it would be nice if we could back-link this as well, so if someone selects the
7.1.1.CR1 archetype, they are told to use AS 7.1 or EAP but not EAP 6.0
On 3 Aug 2012, at 15:23, Rafael Benevides wrote:
Answering to jdf-dev list:
This leads me to think that we will need an extra metadata on runtimes that is
recommendedBomVersion and recommendedArchetypeVersion since the recommendedVersion for a
BOM (7.1.1.CR1) should not be valid in a 7.0.2 runtime context (7.0.2.CR2).
Right ?
Em 03-08-2012 08:29, Pete Muir escreveu:
> Hey
>
> Just realised that we should probably only list the Java EE 6 BOM for AS 7.0.2, as
the others were all done for AS 7.1 (so not tested with 7.0.2).
>
> Also, for archetypes, we should probably list the EAR/WAR ones only, and 7.0.2.CR2 is
a good choice.
7:50 p.m.
New subject: BOMs and archetypes for AS 7.0.2
I've made some tests with yaml aliases and it seens that the back-link
is not possible.
The solution should be for those who wants this feature, to get the
runtime and verify if the selected archetype is one of its archetypes.
I'm preparing Beta4 format with defaultBomVersion and
defaultBomArchetype and updating the site to read the recommended
version from runtime and not from the archetype itself.
Em 03-08-2012 12:46, Pete Muir escreveu:
+1
In fact, it would be nice if we could back-link this as well, so if someone selects the
7.1.1.CR1 archetype, they are told to use AS 7.1 or EAP but not EAP 6.0
On 3 Aug 2012, at 15:23, Rafael Benevides wrote:
> Answering to jdf-dev list:
>
> This leads me to think that we will need an extra metadata on runtimes that is
recommendedBomVersion and recommendedArchetypeVersion since the recommendedVersion for a
BOM (7.1.1.CR1) should not be valid in a 7.0.2 runtime context (7.0.2.CR2).
>
> Right ?
>
>
> Em 03-08-2012 08:29, Pete Muir escreveu:
>> Hey
>>
>> Just realised that we should probably only list the Java EE 6 BOM for AS 7.0.2,
as the others were all done for AS 7.1 (so not tested with 7.0.2).
>>
>> Also, for archetypes, we should probably list the EAR/WAR ones only, and
7.0.2.CR2 is a good choice.
4537
days inactive
4537
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Pete Muir -
Rafael Benevides