[wildfly-dev] Updating the WildFly archetypes

[Eduardo Martins]

Hi Wolfgang, when reviewing it seemed to me that in the *ear* archetype the beans.xml was not needed. I can’t tell if that’s the case for this new archetype without you submitting it for review, but if it fails to deploy without it… ;-)

—E

> On 12 Jun 2019, at 20:57, Wolfgang Knauf <wolfgang.knauf at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi to all,
> 
> just wanted to ask for an update: do you think that the error message is
> acceptable and I should create the archetype without "beans.xml" anyway
> (and add an info to the readme.txt file)?
> Or should I add a default "beans.xml" to the archetype to avoid it?
> Or is it worth a JIRA?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> Am 05.06.19 um 21:42 schrieb Wolfgang Knauf:
>> Hi Eduardo,
>> 
>> 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 is
>> 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
>> "beans.xml".
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 at redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:emartins at redhat.com>> 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)
>>>> 
>>>>     —E
>>>> 
>>>>>     On 16 May 2019, at 10:09, Eduardo Martins <emartins at redhat.com
>>>>>     <mailto:emartins at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Hmm ok, maybe it just failed build due to some specific like JDK
>>>>>     11, will recheck that.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     —E
>>>>> 
>>>>>>     On 16 May 2019, at 02:25, Brian Stansberry
>>>>>>     <brian.stansberry at redhat.com
>>>>>>     <mailto:brian.stansberry at redhat.com>> 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 at redhat.com <mailto:emartins at redhat.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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>         —E
>>>>>>