15:52:38 <lincolnthree> #startmeeting
15:52:38 <jbott> Meeting started Wed Mar  5 15:52:38 2014 UTC.  The chair is lincolnthree. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:52:38 <jbott> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:52:45 <lincolnthree> #chair gastaldi, vineetreynolds
15:52:45 <jbott> Current chairs: gastaldi lincolnthree vineetreynolds
15:52:50 <lincolnthree> #topic Agenda
15:53:11 <lincolnthree> the website, i guess :)
15:53:14 <gastaldi> jbott pingall The Forge meeting has just started! join us!
15:53:14 <jbott> The Forge meeting has just started! join us!
15:53:14 <jbott> adamw_ agoncal aslak balunasj|mtg bleathem ChanServ crobson cvasilak gastaldi jamezp jbarop_ jbossbot jbott jharting kenfinnigan LaSombra lfryc lincolnthree maschmid matzew maxandersen mbenson mmatloka pdurbin rmartinelli robbg sbryzak sgilda tcunning vineetreynolds
15:53:14 <jbott> wsiqueir
15:53:14 <jbott> The Forge meeting has just started! join us!
15:53:16 <lincolnthree> but what else first?
15:53:20 <gastaldi> Roaster
15:53:24 <gastaldi> and integration with Forge 2
15:53:31 <agoncal> Hello everyone
15:53:31 <lincolnthree> #info Roaster Integration
15:53:34 <lincolnthree> hey agoncal!
15:53:38 <gastaldi> hey agoncal
15:53:46 <vineetreynolds> hey agoncal
15:54:01 <gastaldi> heh, bleathem doesn't like Forge meetings :)
15:54:19 <vineetreynolds> Let's drag him back in
15:54:23 <gastaldi> hehe
15:54:30 <gastaldi> agoncal, any topics you would like to discuss?
15:54:34 <gastaldi> vineetreynolds, ^^
15:54:49 <vineetreynolds> hmm probably just a status update
15:54:59 <agoncal> gastaldi Roadmap as usual ;o)  and scaffolding (as usual ;o)
15:55:23 <gastaldi> looks good. And website as the last topic
15:55:29 <gastaldi> lincolnthree, wdyt?
15:56:25 <gastaldi> #info Roadmap
15:56:29 <gastaldi> #info Scaffolding
15:56:33 <gastaldi> #info Website
15:56:43 <gastaldi> ok, let's start then
15:56:55 <gastaldi> lincolnthree1, any more topics to add?
15:57:05 <lincolnthree1> no
15:57:13 <lincolnthree1> i already started the next topic didn't i?
15:57:15 <agoncal> gastaldi critical bugs maybe ?
15:57:18 <lincolnthree1> damn internet!!!
15:57:28 <gastaldi> agoncal, that could be discussed in the roadmap topic
15:57:33 <lincolnthree1> yes, roadmap
15:57:34 <agoncal> ok
15:57:42 <gastaldi> ok, let's begin
15:57:49 <gastaldi> #topic Roaster integration
15:57:53 <gastaldi> #chair mbenson
15:57:53 <jbott> Current chairs: gastaldi lincolnthree mbenson vineetreynolds
15:58:18 <gastaldi> I noticed some demand from the Roaster features lately
15:58:27 <agoncal> gastaldi Maybe a one sentence introduction about what Roaster is (for noobs like me)
15:58:31 <gastaldi> not only from sbryzak, but from other Forge users
15:58:43 <gastaldi> #info Roaster is the new name for the java-parser project
15:58:53 <agoncal> gastaldi thanks
15:58:56 <gastaldi> java-parser 2.0
15:59:38 <gastaldi> and we do have a couple of issues related to integration of it as well
16:00:06 <gastaldi> the question is: how should we introduce Roaster to Forge 2?
16:00:12 <gastaldi> s/to/in
16:00:42 <gastaldi> there is the java-parser addon that uses java-parser 1.x
16:00:54 <gastaldi> we could add the Roaster JAR with it
16:01:40 <mbenson> I think this option was originally proposed by Lincoln; however...
16:01:43 <gastaldi> but then how would we expect users to use it since the services use java-parser 1.x classes?
16:02:14 <mbenson> George noted that the JavaResource API is declared in terms of the 1.x java-parser API
16:02:35 <lincolnthree1> yep that's a big issue
16:02:46 <lincolnthree1> we're facing our first upgrade pain
16:02:47 <gastaldi> also the javaee addon heavily uses it
16:03:16 <gastaldi> as well as the scaffold
16:03:21 <mbenson> but as long as that is not propagated through "chains" of dependent addons, it would seem feasible to clone the existing java-parser addon into a roaster addon
16:03:38 <lincolnthree1> mbenson: that would also cause issues with the resources API
16:03:52 <jbossbot> new jira [3FORGE-1638] Support creation of WebSocket endpoints [10Open (Unresolved) Feature Request,7 Major,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1638
16:03:53 <lincolnthree1> because people might get a Roaster JavaResource or a JP JavaResource
16:03:58 <gastaldi> true
16:04:11 <lincolnthree1> this may actually call for an upgrade to furnace to allow multiple versions of an addon to run…
16:04:25 <lincolnthree1> but i realllllly don't want to get into that yet, it would be very complicated
16:04:27 <gastaldi> hum, not sure if now it's the time
16:04:29 <gastaldi> yeah
16:04:51 <mbenson> I am not yet familiar with the resources API
16:04:59 <gastaldi> anyway, I'm about to release Roaster 2.0.0.Final today
16:05:18 <gastaldi> #action gastaldi will release Roaster (formerly known as java-parser) 2.0.0.Final today
16:05:37 <lincolnthree1> gastaldi: I think our biggest issue is not staying backwards compatible with Roaster, but we did decide it was a big upgrade, so i'm not regretting that decision
16:06:02 <gastaldi> true
16:06:15 <mbenson> and should I ever complete the classfile-based implementation we'll finally have the payoff from splitting the read/write APIs
16:06:19 <gastaldi> we could release Forge 2.2.0 and change everything to Roaster also :)
16:06:25 <lincolnthree1> its possible this needs to wait for forge 3
16:06:28 <lincolnthree1> no
16:06:37 <lincolnthree1> cant do that in a 0.x release
16:06:45 <gastaldi> ok, just checking ;)
16:07:44 <lincolnthree1> as a first step
16:07:51 <gastaldi> maybe we'll need to merge the property feature into 1.x
16:07:52 <lincolnthree1> we can include roaster in the java parser addon
16:07:59 <lincolnthree1> and not integrate it with resources
16:08:06 <lincolnthree1> or with JavaParserFactory
16:08:19 <lincolnthree1> users can simply use Roaster if they desire by passing the inputStream from the resource
16:08:28 <lincolnthree1> to Roaster.parse()
16:08:30 <lincolnthree1> right?
16:08:33 <gastaldi> sure
16:08:37 <lincolnthree1> done
16:08:40 <lincolnthree1> simplest answer
16:08:41 <lincolnthree1> :)
16:08:44 <mbenson> they can do that
16:08:53 <mbenson> but isn't JavaParserFactory provided by the java-parser addon?
16:08:58 <lincolnthree1> yes
16:09:01 <gastaldi> it is
16:09:04 <lincolnthree1> so we don't integrate with that
16:09:04 <gastaldi> and will continue to be
16:09:11 <lincolnthree1> actually
16:09:13 <mbenson> so a separate addon would be possible from that POV
16:09:18 <lincolnthree1> with this line of thinking, we should just do a separate addon
16:09:18 <lincolnthree1> yes
16:09:23 <lincolnthree1> a classloading only addon
16:09:42 <mbenson> presuming we're talking about folk injecting the JavaParserFactory; it'd just be an entirely different bean type
16:09:56 <lincolnthree1> correct
16:10:19 <gastaldi> a RoasterFactory :)
16:10:25 <mbenson> yes
16:10:38 <lincolnthree1> isn't roaster a static class?
16:10:42 <mbenson> I'll try to familiarize myself with the resources API to see if I have any ideas about that
16:10:45 <mbenson> Oh, true
16:11:00 <lincolnthree1> We don't need a factory
16:11:25 <mbenson> but JavaParser in the java-parser addon is also a static class
16:11:36 <mbenson> (we all know what we mean by the misnomer "static class")
16:11:41 <lincolnthree1> yes
16:11:49 <lincolnthree1> Class with static factory methods.
16:11:51 <lincolnthree1> Whatever :p
16:12:40 <gastaldi> ok, so it's a new addon?
16:12:52 <lincolnthree1> yeah, i'd say ClassLoading only for now
16:12:58 <lincolnthree1> we can always upgrade but let's keep it light.
16:13:14 <lincolnthree1> so no furnace container required
16:13:48 <gastaldi> hm
16:14:08 <gastaldi> do we have an addon like that already?
16:14:57 <lincolnthree1> yes
16:14:59 <lincolnthree1> the Text addon
16:15:37 <gastaldi> ah right
16:16:01 <lincolnthree1> actually it does depend on simple container for no reason , it seems
16:16:04 <gastaldi> it uses the simple container
16:16:05 <gastaldi> yeah
16:16:05 <lincolnthree1> that could be removed
16:16:10 <lincolnthree1> but whatever
16:16:11 <lincolnthree1> not important
16:16:34 <gastaldi> ok, let's action it
16:16:53 <gastaldi> #action roaster should be in a classloading only addon
16:17:24 <lincolnthree1> ok
16:17:25 <lincolnthree1> done
16:17:27 <lincolnthree1> next topic?
16:17:31 <gastaldi> should we migrate in 3.x?
16:18:06 <gastaldi> #action fully migration of java-parser to roaster should occur in Forge 3.x
16:18:20 <gastaldi> next topic
16:18:52 <gastaldi> jbott should be smart enough to navigate to the next topic we defined in the Agenda
16:18:54 <jbott> gastaldi: Error: "should" is not a valid command.
16:18:59 <gastaldi> ah shut up :P
16:19:18 <gastaldi> #topic Roadmap
16:19:59 <lincolnthree1> Right now the biggest item on the roadmap IMO is the website.
16:20:10 <lincolnthree1> scripting
16:20:34 <gastaldi> #chair agoncal
16:20:34 <jbott> Current chairs: agoncal gastaldi lincolnthree mbenson vineetreynolds
16:21:04 <agoncal> lincolnthree1 What is the status of the website ?
16:21:14 <gastaldi> agoncal, just started
16:21:34 <gastaldi> it's only running in Openshift so far
16:21:47 <gastaldi> http://website-forge.rhcloud.com
16:22:12 <gastaldi> and it still experiencing some errors
16:22:24 <agoncal> gastaldi Oops.... http://website-forge.rhcloud.com/faces/addon/search.xhtml
16:22:27 <gastaldi> yeah
16:22:41 <gastaldi> the tables were not created
16:22:50 <agoncal> gastaldi So the idea is to create the documentation website using Forge itself ?
16:23:06 <gastaldi> documentation should be in http://github.com/forge/docs
16:23:17 <gastaldi> the website should publish the documentation
16:23:17 <agoncal> So what is http://website-forge.rhcloud.com
16:23:43 <gastaldi> agoncal, it's based on the wireframe in https://jboss.hotgloo.com/projects/54500/
16:23:43 <agoncal> ok, makes sense
16:23:55 <gastaldi> I think you don't have access to see it though
16:24:06 <lincolnthree1> agoncal: it's an incredibly empty placeholder for what will soon be the website :)
16:24:27 <gastaldi> exactly. I'l lput a <blink> in there later :)
16:24:45 <vineetreynolds> blink is so old school
16:24:50 <vineetreynolds> Use CSS shake: http://elrumordelaluz.github.io/csshake/
16:25:13 <vineetreynolds> I was joking in case someone took me seriously
16:25:15 <gastaldi> lol
16:25:43 <vineetreynolds> So addons are going to be listed and their description displayed?
16:25:44 <lincolnthree1> hah!
16:25:47 <vineetreynolds> Is that what the site does?
16:25:48 <lincolnthree1> vineetreynolds: yes
16:25:49 <gastaldi> vineetreynolds, yes
16:25:50 <vineetreynolds> ok
16:25:54 <gastaldi> and we'll have workflows
16:25:57 <lincolnthree1> vineetreynolds: and documentation
16:25:57 <gastaldi> and REST services
16:26:15 <gastaldi> hopefully all generated with Forge
16:26:24 <vineetreynolds> Well you might want to update this when I update the scaffold to Bootstrap3
16:26:28 <gastaldi> we'll design a "100% generated with Forge" logo
16:26:39 <vineetreynolds> I think thats the major UI change planned for Faces scaffolding
16:26:49 <gastaldi> vineetreynolds, that would be great
16:27:00 <gastaldi> maybe we could use WebJars?
16:27:03 <lincolnthree1> gastaldi: it won't all be generated with forge, but the rest services should be I think :)
16:27:44 <agoncal> vineetreynolds And what do you think of that ? FORGE-1580
16:27:44 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1580] Integrating the generated JSF pages better into a entire web application [10Open (Unresolved) Feature Request,7 Major,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1580
16:28:09 <vineetreynolds> reading..
16:28:47 <agoncal> vineetreynolds I'm developping an app that, more or less, looks like Ticket Monster. Ticket Monster has several pages, with different styles of navigation menus (on the left side)
16:29:25 <agoncal> vineetreynolds If we had either 2 layers of templating of if navigation menu was a JSF component, it would be easier to integrate other styles of pages
16:29:41 <lincolnthree1> agoncal: i agree that the navigation is crude
16:29:48 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, There are several ways to do this. Well, most of them are at least in planning
16:30:11 <agoncal> vineetreynolds Good. Would that be with the Bootstrap3/Webjar migration ?
16:30:20 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, The first is to componentize the generation logic
16:30:32 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, It would be over and beyond that, but it's in the works
16:30:43 <gastaldi> +1 to WebJars
16:30:54 <gastaldi> less mess in the webapp
16:31:28 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, If I get this correctly, you'd want to use different templates for different executions of the scaffold-generate command?
16:32:24 <agoncal> vineetreynolds That would be a plus, but having the ability to create new JSF pages without the navigation menu, would be enough
16:32:29 <agoncal> See FORGE-1594
16:32:29 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1594] Being able to create an empty JSF page [10Open (Unresolved) Sub-task,7 Minor,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1594
16:32:50 <gastaldi> this is the faces-new-view from F1 afaik
16:33:00 <vineetreynolds> I think this is possible now, but you'd need to create multiple JSF templates
16:33:19 <vineetreynolds> But anyway we must revisit this with the rework going on
16:33:47 <agoncal> gastaldi yes something like faces-new-view
16:34:46 <gastaldi> yeah, we need to migrate that
16:35:16 <lincolnthree1> yeeah we need that
16:35:40 <lincolnthree1> ive been meaning to, but… time got away from me
16:36:09 <gastaldi> so many things to do in so little time :P
16:36:38 <lincolnthree1> ok what else on the roadmap?
16:36:49 <agoncal> Critical bug : FORGE-1623
16:36:50 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1623] Could not register resource monitor with track-changes [10Open (Unresolved) Bug,7 Critical,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1623
16:37:09 <gastaldi> this looks ugly
16:37:21 <gastaldi> ah wait
16:37:28 <gastaldi> there is another one like this
16:37:36 <gastaldi> it's because it's in a transaction
16:37:43 <gastaldi> you can't create projects under a transaction yet
16:38:12 <gastaldi> FORGE-1287
16:38:13 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1287] REGRESSION: MavenPackagingFacet.getFinalArtifact returns a path with unresolved properties [10Closed (Done) Bug,7 Major,6 George Gastaldi] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1287
16:39:27 <lincolnthree1> oh?
16:39:32 <lincolnthree1> i thought you could
16:39:39 <lincolnthree1> oh… with change tracking you can but not in a transaction?
16:39:40 <lincolnthree1> right...
16:39:44 <lincolnthree1> because of CD behavior i think?
16:39:45 <gastaldi> FORGE-1461
16:39:46 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1461] "project-new" command fails while a ResourceTransaction is active [10Open (Unresolved) Feature Request,7 Critical,6 George Gastaldi] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1461
16:39:51 <gastaldi> no
16:39:52 <lincolnthree1> right
16:39:54 <lincolnthree1> oh
16:40:02 <lincolnthree1> its been too long since i looked at this issue
16:40:22 <agoncal> Liking both JIRAs
16:40:27 <agoncal> Linking
16:41:42 <gastaldi> and of course, we can't cd to it
16:42:20 <gastaldi> hum, unless this was fixed in later aesh version
16:42:25 <gastaldi> s
16:42:58 <lincolnthree1> we can't
16:43:00 <lincolnthree1> its not fixed
16:43:03 <lincolnthree1> well… we can CD into it
16:43:05 <lincolnthree1> but we can't tab complete
16:43:07 <lincolnthree1> i fixed that afaik
16:44:12 <gastaldi> ok, I'll try to reproduce it and try to find the cause
16:44:24 <gastaldi> but I don't think that bug is Critical
16:44:55 <agoncal> gastaldi Well, if it's when it's in a transaction, that's not critical (I just didn't know the pb)
16:44:59 <gastaldi> ah wait
16:45:09 <gastaldi> hmm, it's easy to fix
16:45:22 <gastaldi> we just don't monitor non-existent files :)
16:45:40 <gastaldi> because we use the JDK7 WatchService for it
16:46:11 <lincolnthree1> ahhhh
16:46:12 <lincolnthree1> right
16:47:11 <gastaldi> done
16:47:16 <jbossbot> git [12core] push 10master7 543d1ba.. 6George Gastaldi FORGE-1623: Do not monitor non-existent files
16:47:16 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1623] Could not register resource monitor with track-changes [10Open (Unresolved) Bug,7 Critical,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1623
16:47:16 <jbossbot> git [12core] push 10master URL: http://github.com/forge/core/commit/543d1ba66
16:47:18 <gastaldi> fixed
16:47:23 <agoncal> That was quick ;o)
16:47:24 <gastaldi> next topic :)
16:47:26 <gastaldi> :D
16:47:41 <agoncal> BTW guys, if this is correct, that could be my next contribuition
16:47:42 <agoncal> FORGE-1635
16:47:43 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1635] Shouldn't these commands be isProjectRequired() return true [10Open (Unresolved) Feature Request,7 Major,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1635
16:47:59 <gastaldi> that was something we discussed some time ago
16:48:03 <lincolnthree1> that might cause issues with project POM monitoring being outdated right?
16:48:16 <gastaldi> lincolnthree1, not when in a transaction I suppose
16:48:24 <gastaldi> it shouldn't even build
16:48:42 <lincolnthree1> agoncal: no, those were specifically chosen to be available all the time, but…. we could re-think that
16:49:14 <agoncal> lincolnthree1 Without creating a project you can create en EJB or an Entity ?
16:49:16 <lincolnthree1> guys, i have to go
16:49:20 <lincolnthree1> ill monitor
16:49:25 <lincolnthree1> have another meeting
16:49:37 <gastaldi> lincolnthree1, to make it build, we need to uncomment this line https://github.com/forge/core/blob/master/maven/impl-projects/src/main/java/org/jboss/forge/addon/maven/projects/MavenBuildManager.java#L80
16:49:50 <gastaldi> ok, let's move on to the next topic
16:50:04 <gastaldi> ah sorry
16:50:09 <gastaldi> agoncal, yeah, that's the idea
16:50:34 <gastaldi> but perhaps that may not be right
16:50:37 <agoncal> gastaldi But what does it do ? It creates an EJB without even a pom.xml ?
16:50:51 <gastaldi> correct, it just creates a EJB class and that's all
16:51:31 <agoncal> gastaldi Like an add-on..... hum.... looks strange, why an EJB, an Entity, but not a Rest endpoint or a servlet ?
16:51:59 <gastaldi> those too should be allowed
16:52:15 <gastaldi> in fact we were a bit confused about that
16:52:24 <agoncal> Looks like anything should be allowed then, no ?
16:52:40 <agoncal> Looks like it should none or all, no ?
16:52:44 <gastaldi> yeah, that's why it looks weird
16:53:02 <agoncal> Hum... ok, I thought there was a more technical reason
16:53:25 <agoncal> Forge could then be used to quickly create a servlet for e.g.
16:53:29 <gastaldi> I prefer having the command available only if a project is available
16:53:35 <agoncal> But again, that means that all the commands should be available then
16:53:44 <gastaldi> but I guess lincolnthree1 has some reasons to not
16:53:51 <agoncal> Yes, it does make more sense for me too
16:53:59 <lincolnthree1> i dont mind if we do that again
16:54:00 <lincolnthree1> it's consistent with forge 1
16:54:07 <gastaldi> let's do that then
16:54:10 <gastaldi> agoncal, do it !
16:54:13 <gastaldi> Case closed ;)
16:54:16 <agoncal> Ok, I'll write this in the comment of the JIRA and we'll wait for Lincoln
16:54:23 <gastaldi> he already answered :)
16:54:45 <gastaldi> <lincolnthree1> i dont mind if we do that again
16:54:45 <gastaldi> <lincolnthree1> it's consistent with forge 1
16:54:51 <agoncal> Oh, ok.... Then I'll do a Pull/Request (but first read the Git manual ;o)
16:54:56 <gastaldi> hehe
16:55:07 <gastaldi> make sure to create a branch first
16:55:12 <gastaldi> it will be easier
16:55:26 <gastaldi> ok, next topic?
16:55:35 * aslak preparing dinner for ståle :)
16:55:39 <agoncal> Grrr.... I always create a branch first (I thought I was doing everything well, but I'm not.... anyway....)
16:55:57 <agoncal> Yes, next topic
16:56:17 <gastaldi> #topic Scaffolding
16:56:23 <gastaldi> vineetreynolds, showtime
16:56:42 <vineetreynolds> Well, firstly a status update
16:57:09 <vineetreynolds> I've managed to get the composite uicommand working for the scaffold setup and generation commands
16:57:40 <vineetreynolds> In simple words, it means that you dont have to click through 6 separate windows to select various versions of facets to setup the scaffold
16:58:00 <vineetreynolds> Of course most of the work was done by gastaldi  in supporting composite commands
16:58:16 <vineetreynolds> FYI, this would also break the ScaffoldProvider API
16:58:39 <gastaldi> I think this is fine, no one started to extend the scaffold yet
16:58:50 <gastaldi> I hope :)
16:58:57 <vineetreynolds> Well ok, right now, I'm currently working on supporting template masking
16:59:16 <vineetreynolds> So templates supplied by the addons would be overriden by templates place in src/main/templates
16:59:37 <vineetreynolds> Once I have this ready, I'll be working on porting the AngularJS scaffold
17:00:15 <vineetreynolds> There are of course changes to the templates API when I perform this, so API breakages are expected in the templates addon and in its consumers
17:00:16 <agoncal> vineetreynolds Would that also affect the JSF scaffold ?
17:00:26 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, Not for now, but eventually yes
17:00:59 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, Right now the Faces scaffold does not rely on FTL templates supplied from the classpath in several places
17:01:23 <vineetreynolds> We wish to change this over the course of time to allow end-users to control more of the facelet content
17:02:44 <vineetreynolds> I'll be alternating between the Faces scaffold and the AngularJS scaffold, but I hope to get a working version of the latter out first
17:02:56 <vineetreynolds> before I move on to sort the outstanding ones
17:03:51 <agoncal> vineetreynolds Do you think the Bootstrap3/Webjar will get done before that ?
17:04:08 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, Bootstrap3 changes would come in earlier
17:04:15 <agoncal> great
17:04:15 <vineetreynolds> If I get time, as early as next week
17:04:27 <agoncal> Fantastic
17:04:32 <vineetreynolds> So it would make it into the next forge release
17:04:46 <agoncal> So in terms of RoadMap, would that be for a 2.1.2 or 2.2.0 ?
17:04:53 <agoncal> Good
17:04:53 <vineetreynolds> I'm fairly acquainted with BS3 since the angular one already has it
17:04:58 <vineetreynolds> I think 2.2
17:05:01 <vineetreynolds> We might not have 2.1.2
17:05:04 <vineetreynolds> right gastaldi
17:05:15 <vineetreynolds> Too many API changes to warrant a 2.1.2 release
17:05:16 <jbossbot> git [12roaster] push 10master7 17f5e99.. 6George Gastaldi [maven-release-plugin] prepare release 2.0.0.Final
17:05:16 <jbossbot> git [12roaster] push 10master URL: http://github.com/forge/roaster/commit/17f5e99df
17:05:18 <gastaldi> yeah
17:05:23 <jbossbot> git [12roaster] push 102.0.0.Final URL: http://github.com/forge/roaster/compare/0000000...6a565f3
17:05:25 <jbossbot> git [12roaster] push 10master7 863493f.. 6George Gastaldi [maven-release-plugin] prepare for next development iteration
17:05:25 <jbossbot> git [12roaster] push 10master URL: http://github.com/forge/roaster/commit/863493fc7
17:05:56 * vineetreynolds is pretty sure he will be blamed for F2 not have dot releases
17:06:13 <gastaldi> that makes two of us :)
17:07:00 <agoncal> In terms of code generation (not only UI scaffolding), what about generating more artifacts (like in F1) such as :
17:07:06 <agoncal> FORGE-1615
17:07:07 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1615] Being able to create Bean Validation artifacts [10Open (Unresolved) Feature Request,7 Major,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1615
17:07:18 <agoncal> FORGE-1593
17:07:18 <vineetreynolds> btw here's how the new UI for scaffold setup looks like - http://www.screencast.com/t/M4t4lmiyL
17:07:19 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1593] Being able to create our own JSF artifacts [10Open (Unresolved) Feature Request,7 Minor,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1593
17:07:22 <gastaldi> we're open for Pull requests anytime :)
17:07:36 <gastaldi> vineetreynolds, AWESOME
17:08:01 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, I'm actually looking at incorporating one of your feature requests into scaffolding. No time line though
17:08:05 <gastaldi> maxandersen, look at that
17:08:15 <vineetreynolds> FORGE-1577 and FORGE-1579
17:08:16 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1577] Create command ejb-generate-services-from-entities [10Open (Unresolved) Sub-task,7 Major,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1577
17:08:16 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1579] Create command faces-generate-pages-from-services [10Open (Unresolved) Sub-task,7 Major,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1579
17:08:28 <vineetreynolds> maxandersen, http://www.screencast.com/t/M4t4lmiyL
17:08:41 <agoncal> vineetreynolds Yes, those two would be awesome
17:09:05 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, It would take a while, since we're moving everything to a template based model if possible
17:09:28 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, And if it is not a template, even then it would be customizable in the future through a rule engine
17:09:44 <maxandersen> vineetreynolds: nice….are the versions looking at the stuff already setup in eclipse so I dont have to guess ? :)
17:10:16 <vineetreynolds> maxandersen, Actually no. More like it combines 4 wizard dialogs into one
17:10:51 <gastaldi> maxandersen, that's -3 button clicks :)
17:11:24 <maxandersen> gastaldi: yes - but eclipse has most if not all of this info already on the project ;)
17:11:36 <gastaldi> it takes from the pom.xml?
17:11:44 <vineetreynolds> No we dont do that
17:12:00 <vineetreynolds> We simply allow one of multiple versions to be setup in the pom
17:12:05 <vineetreynolds> The POM does not have this info yet
17:12:31 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, The idea is to create rules that users can modify to customize the generation of code. So the rules would merely combine multiple Forge services
17:12:47 <agoncal> vineetreynolds Interesting
17:12:49 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, Individual commands would have fewer rules
17:12:59 <vineetreynolds> and scaffolding would combine multiple such rules
17:13:29 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, here's what inspired some of this thinking: http://www.slideshare.net/cedric.vidal/rmll-eclipse-acceleo-day-mdsd-scaffolding-and-acceleo-cdric-vidal-11
17:13:46 <vineetreynolds> although we did consider bringing in a rules engine several months back
17:14:12 <gastaldi> mbenson, wdyt of renaming the artifactId of roaster/impl to just roaster?
17:14:36 <mbenson> i.e. roaster-parent, roaster-api, roaster?
17:14:40 <gastaldi> yup
17:15:08 <mbenson> hrm, in this case, given the future plans I'd almost wonder whether the API was "Roaster" and the impl was roaster-jdt or similar
17:15:15 <vineetreynolds> agoncal, Right now the code generation is not customizable in several addons, and templates dont even exist yet.
17:15:20 <vineetreynolds> That's why, while FORGE-1577 and FORGE-1579 could be completed individually, using them in scaffolding would take a while.
17:15:20 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1577] Create command ejb-generate-services-from-entities [10Open (Unresolved) Sub-task,7 Major,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1577
17:15:21 <jbossbot> jira [3FORGE-1579] Create command faces-generate-views-from-services [10Open (Unresolved) Sub-task,7 Major,6 Unassigned] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1579
17:15:49 <gastaldi> ah right
17:15:52 <gastaldi> that makes sense
17:16:04 <gastaldi> roaster-jdt looks better
17:16:14 <vineetreynolds> well thats it from my end
17:16:33 <gastaldi> great
17:16:50 <gastaldi> so the next topic would be website, but I think we already discussed about it
17:17:10 <gastaldi> any questions about it?
17:18:10 <maxandersen> someone volunteer to make this page better ? :) http://tools-stg.jboss.org/features/forge.html
17:18:40 <gastaldi> ugh
17:19:22 <maxandersen> planning on release this tools.jboss.org end of this month
17:20:13 <gastaldi> I wish I could, but already got a sh*tload of tasks to accomplish :(
17:21:57 <gastaldi> lincolnthree1, mbenson I'll rename roaster-impl to roaster-jdt
17:22:03 <gastaldi> and release again
17:22:16 <gastaldi> glad nexus is slow today :)
17:23:43 <vineetreynolds> arent we ending this meeting?
17:23:47 <gastaldi> #endmeeting