Hi Tony, I think the question here is more technical, i.e. how to structure and where to put the poms/boms to 1. centralize dependencies 2. avoid overlapping/misconfiguration 3. simplify management/updates
IMO, given the current situation, repo should reflect the architectural layers as much as possible, with Drools being the core library, kogito-runtimes framework, etc etc. It is not 100% that way, of course. And, to be more community-friendly, I think we should start to use consistent naming: what is the "Drools" you are referring to ? The "Drools" repository ? Or, everything that is related and dependent on the code that is hosted inside the drools repository (i.e. all our "KIE" ecosystem) ? In the former case, I thought that we could not split the release cycle, being KIE one single "project" - please correct me if I'm wrong. In the latter case, it is not very clear what you mean with "Everything Drools runtime related should be in the Drools repo." Anyway, again, the topic here is pretty simple and limited: create three boms for each different use case: plain java/spring-boot integration/quarkus integration. Does this make sense ? Il giorno mer 30 lug 2025 alle ore 09:20 Toni Rikkola <rikk...@apache.org> ha scritto: > Everything Drools runtime related should be in the Drools repo. > > Reason is that Drools should have a separate community release cycle. As > it is, Drools could release weekly if it wanted to. > > Drools is one of the bits that desperately needs community releases to > stay relevant. In itself it has no sell or support value. However without > wide usage. Supported by frequent releases the market of using Drools. For > free as an open source project. Community use goes down. Community use goes > down, committer count goes down. Community use goes down, sales go down for > vendors. It is beneficial for absolutely everyone that Drools releases > often. > > Toni > > On 2025/07/29 17:13:26 Paolo Bizzarri wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > this is a good question. > > > > I would probably try to be minimalistic and use the smallest possible > BOMs. > > ideally if you do not need a feature you should not use the related BOMs. > > > > However my - limited - understanding is that Drools is somehow > foundational > > for other Kie projects, so I am not 100% sure of the best approach here. > > > > If possible, I would prefer to keep the projects/products separate, or at > > least connected when strictly necessary, so that in a pure drools > project I > > have nothing that is related to other parts of the Kie. > > > > However I admit I have to do some homework if this is the discussion we > > want to have - my goal was very limited and focused only to Drools. > > > > Regards > > > > P. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 3:54 PM Jason Porter <jpor...@ibm.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > >
