I was going to suggest a chain of BOMs that built on top of one another, but you posted before I saw the email, Paolo.
I like the idea of BOMs building upon each other, but there is certainly a trade-off for the user: more things to maintain in the pom.xml. Granted, it is only two vs one so not that big of a deal, and probably nothing people are going to be concerned about. I wanted to make sure we thought about the different angles. Another question I think we need to ask ourselves is this: Is KIE a single project, meant to be consumed as a whole, or is it a bunch of smaller projects that can be used however a user wants? Of course, people are going to create cobbled together projects no matter what we decide to do. If KIE is a project itself, I think it makes sense to have a single main BOM (or maybe three? KIE, KIE+Quarkus, KIE+SpringBoot). What are everyone’s thoughts? -- Jason Porter Software Engineer He/Him/His IBM From: Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 at 05:45 To: dev@kie.apache.org <dev@kie.apache.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION][PROPOSAL] Creating a separated BOM for Quarkus and SpringBoot projects in Drools Hi, Tibor: not sure about the impact of having a single Kie BOM. I assume we will have Kie BOM <- Drools BOM <- Drools + Quarkus Extension BOM as a chain of dependencies. My only concern is that creating a centralized BOM for very different projects can cause unwanted deps and pain. But this is not my area of expertise, so I hope others can comment. Gabriele: I think I agree, but as above I am not sure about the implications. Again, not my area of expertise, so I hope others can comment. Thanks for comments, let's see if other devs can add their thoughts. Regards P. On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 11:28 AM Gabriele Cardosi < gabriele.card...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tibor, Paolo, > my personal view is that the quarkus/springboot boms should be placed > inside kogito-runtimes repository itself, and everything quarkus-related > should be moved from drools-repo to kogito-runtimes. > One of the goals IMO is to completely "clean-up" drools repository from any > framework-related dependency, and move the framework integration inside > kogito-runtimes. > Does this make sense ? > > Il giorno mar 29 lug 2025 alle ore 11:06 Tibor Zimányi < > tzima...@apache.org> > ha scritto: > > > Hi Paolo, > > > > thank you for this initiative. It is really needed, however I think it > > needs to be done on the whole KIE level, not just Drools level. The same > > situation is in kogito-runtimes repository. Therefore I think we need a > > global KIE bom and then global Quarkus bom and global Spring Boot bom. > > > > What do you think, please? > > > > Best regards, > > Tibor > > > > > > Dňa ut 29. 7. 2025, 10:54 Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> napísal(a): > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > this discussion comes after the concerns expressed by Gabriele in this > > > comment on this PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-drools/pull/6352#issuecomment-2911439196 > > > > > > > I want to address Gabriele's main points: > > > > > > - keep Drools as much as possible separated from frameworks like > Quarkus > > > and Springboot > > > - provide separate BOMs for Quarkus Extension and Springboot Extension. > > > > > > The idea is to have three BOMs - one for simple Drools projects, one > for > > > projects that use Droos + Quarkus and one for projects that use Drools > + > > > SpringBoot. > > > > > > In this way if a project needs just Drools it could use only the Drools > > > BOM, while a project that wants to use also Quarkus would have to use > the > > > Drools + Quarkus BOM. > > > > > > This is a breaking change however - projects that want to use Drools + > > > Quarkus will have to use a different BOM. We can address this in the > > > release notes. > > > > > > I expect the complexity of this change to be minimal, and I am going to > > > take care of it. > > > > > > Let me know your opinion. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > P. > > > > > >
