11:40 a.m.
I'll think out loud so people can correct my thinking...
This is more complicated to me than the grpc one as 'ai' is much more
broadly scoped.
For some context, part of the issue that led to this overall thread is
creating an updated permission scheme for deploying artifacts to JBoss
Nexus. That's easier to do if the same set of people can deploy everything
in a given groupdId. If you have unrelated people sharing the same groupId,
then you either have a potentially wrong set of people able to deploy or
you need to start enumerating artifacts and giving perms based on artifact
lists or artifact name patterns. Harder to maintain.
So, org.wildfly.ai is much more likely to result over the years in
different sets of people deploying than, say, org.wildfly.grpc is.
That said, 'org.wildfly.ai' is probably ok. If someone comes with something
new *and* it really doesn't fit with the permission scheme, we can require
them to use groupId org.wildfly.ai.foo.
BUT if you can come up with your own, good, 'foo' right now, that would be
nice. If you can't, go with 'org.wildfly.ai'.
To me 'org.wildfly.feature-pack' doesn't seem like a good category. I can
easily see a given repo producing artifacts that are only semi-related to
'feature-pack'. For example a maven module producing a WildFly Extension
impl is only semi-related to 'feature-pack'. Extensions artifacts are
usable in any feature pack, and we've been using extension artifacts for
many years before Stuart Douglas introduced the original feature pack
concept. Artifacts like that, or other things like backing libraries, may
some day end up in a code base completely separate from the Galleon-related
stuff.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 9:50 AM Emmanuel Hugonnet <ehugonne(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hi
Would "org.wildfly.ai" be ok as groupId for ai fp ? or should we go to
something more explicit like "org.wildfly.feature-pack.ai" ?
Emmanuel
Le 28/02/2025 à 16:31, Brian Stansberry a écrit :
> No, I'd prefer not to go off on a renaming exercise.
>
> The one exception to that is
https://github.com/wildfly-extras/wildfly-grpc-feature-pack, which has
never produced a 1.x release; latest
> is 0.1.11. I think a breaking change can be expected in a 0.x release.
Harald, if you agree can you make a note to get that changed before
> we do anything that more closely ties that repo to our end users?
>
> Beyond that, if people reading this manage wildfly-extras projects and
think a change is appropriate, let me know what the new groupId
> will be. But if you're talking about changing something that may break
appserver end users (e.g. the GraphQL feature pack), let's not. And
> if something will need a lot of discussion, let's not. Better things to
do. :)
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:04 PM Jason Lee <jasondlee(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> This all sounds good to me. It would be a breaking change, of
course, but could/should "we" strongly encourage those other repos to
> change their group ID?
>
> Jason Lee
>
> Principal Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat JBoss EAP
>
> Java Champion
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 7:30 PM Brian Stansberry <
brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Also, no org.wildfly.extras.*.
>
> The wildfly-extras github org is largely meant to serve as an
incubating space for stuff that may at some time move to the wildfly
> GH org. So putting 'extras' in the package name is taking
something possibly temporary and putting it into something that's likely
> permanent.
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 6:06 PM James Perkins <
jperkins(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> +1 I any project outside of the wildfly/wildfly repository
should be using a different groupId.
>
>
> James R.Perkins
>
> Principal Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat<https://www.redhat.com/>
>
> <https://www.redhat.com/>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 6:53 PM Brian Stansberry <
brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Currently we have a number of different repos publishing
artifacts using the 'org.wildfly' groupId with no further
> namespacing.
>
> Going forward I don't think we should allow any other
new repos to do that. It leads to administrative hassles, e.g. with
> setting things up in Nexus.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
> WildFly Project Lead
> He/Him/His
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org
> Privacy Statement:
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
> List Archives:
https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message...
>
>
>
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
> WildFly Project Lead
> He/Him/His
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org
> Privacy Statement:
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
> List Archives:
https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message...
>
>
>
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
> WildFly Project Lead
> He/Him/His
>
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org
> Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
> List Archives:
https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message...
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
List Archives:
https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message...
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
WildFly Project Lead
He/Him/His