On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 14:43 +0000, Stefan Seifert wrote: > - currently there are lots of sling maven archetypes, and most of > them not well maintained > - we would favor to have only one single "project" archetypes, > probably the new "project" archetype contributed by andy > - add parameters to switch features on and off, e.g. for generating > only with bundle but not with the content packages > - this can be done using the groovy prost process > - there is already a groovy script with a lot of logic in it, to be > reviewed if it already covers all use cases > - the plan is to no longer have the need to maintain multiple > archetypes > - review the generated structure of the current project archetypes. > the structure is derived from the adobe AEM project archetype, but we > like not all of it. e.g. the "ui." prefix for the contant packages, > probably introduce "bundles" and "content-packages" folders to but > bundles and content packages in.
I would like to propose the following: A. deprecate all project archetype ( + parent ) except the sling- project-archetype 1. sling-slingstart-archetype 2. sling-archetype-parent 3. sling-taglib-archetype 4. sling-servlet-archetype 5. sling-bundle-archetype 6. sling-initial-content-archetype 7. sling-launchpad-standalone-archetype 8. sling-launchpad-webapp-archetype 9. sling-jcrinstall-bundle-archetype B. include the following artifacts in the project 1. core ( Java bundle ) 2. content ( content package, sample data ) 3. apps ( content package, Sling scripts ) 4. launcher ( feature model project ) C. I like the fact that the project includes sample data. Would it simplify maintenance if we always generated the sample data? I would expect the user to tweak it anyway. D. We _could_ heavily tweak the project and make it generate a single module, by e.g. deleting anything but the one of the modules and then making them top-level after generation has run (groovy script). That would effectively replace the other 8 existing projects, but I'm not sure if the complexity is worth it. Thoughts? Thanks, Robert
