while building a "wildfly-javaee-webapp-archetype", I think I found a
small WildFly issue: you remember that you pointed me to the fact that
"beans.xml" is optional?
But when creating a blank project from my new web archetype (which
defines a "faces-config.xml", but no "beans.xml"), the attached error
in the WildFly console. But it seems the app is deployed anyway.
The error disappears if I add e.g. an annotated EJB, or if I add a
Do you think this is a WildFly bug? Or should I add a default
"beans.xml" just to avoid this error?
I did not test it with a blank project from the EAR archetype - will do
this in the next few days.
Am 03.06.19 um 21:36 schrieb Wolfgang Knauf:
Thanks for the deploy, Eduardo!
If you consider it reasonable I will create an archetype for "web app
only", similar to the old "wildfly-javaee7-webapp-archetype".
But I will probably need a few weeks...
What happens to the old archetype
"wildfly-javaee7-webapp-ear-archetype"? It could be deleted, as it does
not build anyway. It might be relevant only for research.
Am 03.06.19 um 17:05 schrieb Brian Stansberry:
> Excellent! Thank you so much Wolfgang!
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:52 AM Eduardo Martins <emartins(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> Wolfgang: yours and mine PRs are merged, and when WFLY 17 Final is
> out I will also deploy the archetype, thanks a lot for your
> contribution! Yet now I have to ask, do you plan to submit similar
> for the other old javaee archetype? :-)
> Brian: yep it was just the JDK, I will deploy these too (no planned
> updates in such code tho)
>> On 16 May 2019, at 10:09, Eduardo Martins <emartins(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
>> Hmm ok, maybe it just failed build due to some specific like JDK
>> 11, will recheck that.
>>> On 16 May 2019, at 02:25, Brian Stansberry
>>> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
>>> These build for me.
>>> They're not as out of date as I'd thought either.
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:34 PM Eduardo Martins
>>> <emartins(a)redhat.com <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
>>> If you think it’s not a small effort task then certainly
>>> agree that’s not a blocker, I look at the archetypes same way
>>> as the quickstarts, an aggregation project, so we may take
>>> outdated/faulty ones out of build and release the
>>> working+actual ones. We may give it a thought later if it
>>> makes sense effort wise to update or drop the subsystem ones,
>>> no worries.