Hi Will, > The biggest issue with the archetype is that it's not designed for the NB > JEE wizard at all, which actually creates 4 related projects instead of > one. And there seems to be some regression that has crept in to the JEE 7 > project builder that's making it fail. So, the greenfield JEE experience in > Netbean right now is pretty rough.
Sorry, but there must be something incorrect with the Java EE 8 project archetype that you are using. When I use Apache NetBeans to create a Java EE 8 project, I select the following: - New: "Java with Maven" -> "Web Application" This creates a single WAR project with a working JAX-RS web service. I am not sure which archetype you are referring to that creates 4 related projects, so we need to figure that out. The Jakarta EE 8 archetype is very similar to that of the Java EE 8, with the exception of the POM dependencies on Jakarta EE, rather than Java EE. The Jakarta EE 9 project utlizes the new jakarta.* namespace, so it is a bit different. When I published my archetypes to Maven Central, I used my own account. I believe I asked the NetBeans project if there was a standard namespace, and there was not at the time. Perhaps the older Maven archetype namespace is no longer usable under Apache, but I am not sure. When moving forward, we can certainly look into publishing to a single, standard namespace. Thanks Josh Juneau [email protected] http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com https://www.apress.com/us/search?query=Juneau <https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:33 AM Will Hartung <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:23 PM Josh Juneau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the great feedback on the Java EE 8 archetype that is being > > used with Apache NetBeans. When I created the archetype, it was not > meant > > to become a standard. Rather, it was meant as a starting point for Java > EE > > 8 projects and to get Java EE 8 project support into Apache NetBeans. I > > was hoping that it would be built upon by the community over time, and > even > > that a better and more standardized Maven archetype be put into place. > > > > > > However, there is keen insight here that I think there is room for > different JEE project types as well. A simple example that you have is a > microprofile skeleton. That certainly doesn't need multiple projects, and I > think it is a popular path forward. > > And, naturally, I think there should be support for Java EE 8 and Jakarta > EE 9. Though functionally identical, the simple renaming would be helpful > moving forward. If we can get the JEE 8 one fixed, the JEE 9 one will come > "for free". Although I wonder if they had to rename all of their schemas as > well, that would be a deeper issue when the IDE generates things like a > persistence.xml or an ejb-jar.xml. > > What I don't know is what are the tell tales to the IDE that tell it that > we're working with a "JEE" project, where it wants to hook up a deployment > server, etc. Is it simply the detecting a packaging style of war, vs ejb, > vs ear instead of jar that informs the IDE what to do? Does it look for the > plugin in the pom? > > Consider a microprofile project. That would likely just be a standalone > jar, bundling the microprofile runtime with the application code to make a > fat jar...I guess. It has different deployment options. > > > > All that said, I think it would be great to have the Apache NetBeans > > projects generated by Maven archetypes that are all hosted under a > standard > > namespace. We should also be updating the archetypes as time goes on, as > > needed. These are community supported, just like Apache NetBeans, so > they > > should continue to evolve. > > > > I just don't know that once an archetype is checked in to the source base, > when and how are those published to something like Maven Central. In > theory, Apache also has its own repository, and I guess it routinely and > automatically forwards up to Maven central? I don't think we'd need to > install the archetypes locally as part of the module deployment, but that's > certainly an option. > > Regards, > > Will Hartung >
