[forge-dev] JBoss Stacks: Requirements

[Rafael Benevides]

Ok, Pete.

Well, But there are lot of other files that the parser results as 
Archetype, Bom, MajorRelease, MinorRelease, Runtime, RuntimeType, and 
Stacks classes

I think that copying all Parser classes will be harder to people 
maintain than a using it as dependency, specially when the file format 
gets updated.

Sorry, Is there any special reason for you to prefer copying instead of 
dependency that I didn't realize?

Rafael Benevides | Senior JBoss Consultant
Red Hat Brazil
+55-61-9269-6576

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


Em 17-07-2012 12:56, Pete Muir escreveu:
> Basically, the idea is to avoid a dependency, and allow people to just 
> copy and paste the class into their project.
>
> On 17 Jul 2012, at 16:51, Rafael Benevides wrote:
>
>> "Also, we need to get the Parser down to one file (i.e. use 
>> nested classes) to make it easier for people to add to their project."
>>
>> I think that i didn't get the point of what you suggested. 
>> Any Example of how do you that is should be used instead 
>> of instantiating or injecting the parser ?
>>
>> Rafael Benevides | Senior JBoss Consultant
>> Red Hat Brazil
>> +55-61-9269-6576
>>
>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community 
>> collaboration.
>> See how it works at redhat.com <http://redhat.com>
>>
>>
>> Em 17-07-2012 11:31, Pete Muir escreveu:
>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>
>>> This is starting to look really good!
>>>
>>> * I think we should add a labels: property to the BOM definitions, 
>>> just to try to future proof a bit.
>>> * I think we need a groupId on the BOMs, as we probably will need to 
>>> include some in other groupIds at some point. We could default it 
>>> org.jboss.boms.
>>> * We should add the org.jboss.spec BOMs :-) These will make a better 
>>> default for the runtimes
>>> * I think recommendedBOM on the runtime should be defaultBom (notice 
>>> the case change), as this seems to make more sense to me (same for 
>>> recommendedArchetype)
>>> * I don't think we need properties as, labels will cover this (a 
>>> consumer can use a label to set up the right properties)
>>>
>>> Also, we need to get the Parser down to one file (i.e. use nested 
>>> classes) to make it easier for people to add to their project.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Jul 2012, at 02:19, Rafael Benevides wrote:
>>>
>>>> The latest version of the JBoss Stacks format is right here: 
>>>> https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/Beta2/stacks.yaml
>>>> I think that this format finally met our requirements.
>>>>
>>>> For now, I put only JBoss EAP 6.0 and JBoss AS 7.0.0 runtimes just 
>>>> to illustrate how it should be. The archetypes will also follow the 
>>>> same structure.
>>>>
>>>> I committed the parser on the same repo because the parser is tied 
>>>> to the file format.
>>>>
>>>> The Stacks class is now the root of the Yaml file ( more detail on 
>>>> attached diagram - modified since last email ).
>>>>
>>>> The API use is simple as:
>>>>
>>>> Stacks stacks = parser.parse(inputStream);
>>>>
>>>> After we just navigate on the graph (various paths are possible):
>>>>
>>>> stacks.getAvailableBoms().get(SOME);
>>>> stacks.getAvailableRuntimes().get(SOME);
>>>> stacks.getMajorReleases().get(SOME).getMinorReleases().get(OTHER).getRecommendedRuntime().getBoms().get(ANOTHER).
>>>> stacks.getMinorReleases().get(SOME).getRecommendedRuntime().getRecommendedBOM().getAvailableVersions();
>>>>
>>>> Now I will update the jdf-plugin to use the jdf-stack parser API.
>>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120717/299ada9a/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Class Diagram.png
Type: image/png
Size: 155529 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120717/299ada9a/attachment-0001.png