[jbosstools-dev] Regarding Stacks, Runtimes, and Remote Descriptors

[Rafael Benevides]

Em 03/04/13 18:05, Max Rydahl Andersen escreveu:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:48:05AM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote:
>>>> We also got runtimes like drools and seam which aren't exactly 
>>>> servers.
>>> In the classification we've used, Drools and Seam aren't runtimes, 
>>> they are frameworks - the key difference being they are embedded 
>>> into an existing app, and they don't require you to start the JVM.
>>>
>>> We can add this to stacks.yml, but I wonder whether runtimes is the 
>>> right place to put it.
>> Yes.  That's the kind of discussion that is recurrent :) - To refresh 
>> what we discussed about it, we decided that we will use these 
>> runtimes (drools, seam, etc)  under runtimes section. On that 
>> occasion (stacks cr1 release), we decided to created the 
>> 'runtime-category' label to distinguish these runtime types. I'll 
>> improve the tests to make this label required to all runtimes. We 
>> need only to decide what 'runtime-category' to use for these other 
>> "runtimes".
>
> frameworks or should we even add some more specific type i.e. 
> drools-fwk, seam-fwk ? Or is there some other way we can know what 
> specific type they are ?
I liked framework! We will know that it's a seam framework or drools 
framework by the runtime name. Or we can add a framework-type label like 
we have today for runtime-category=server where we have runtime-type: AS 
or EAP.
>
>>>> Also, can we have runtimes listed without having matching archetypes ?
>>>> i.e. if we would like to move all our existing info over to stacks.yml
>>>> instead of having it spread over we would need this runtime list 
>>>> without
>>>> having matching bom's etc.
>> Yes. it's is possible to have a runtime with a 'empty list' of 
>> archetypes and boms. The tests only complains about having an 
>> archetype or a bom that isn't used on any runtime.
>
> great.