Should the sling-project-archetype generate a launcher module?

[Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I was browsing the sling-project-archetype and was wondering whether we
should have a 'launcher' module, generated by default, and based on the
Sling Starter 12 feature model.

I think it would make it simpler to demonstrate 'this is how you start
a Sling project', with the (hopefully) small added cost of maintenance
and the caveat 

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Robert

Re: Should the sling-project-archetype generate a launcher module?

[Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>]

Hi Ruben,

On Fri, 2021-07-09 at 06:47 -0700, Ruben Reusser wrote:
> Robert,
> 
> I think its a good idea - I wonder however if in that case the sling 
> sample in the sling starter should be removed and the initial content a
> bit rearranged to allow for a cleaner start of a new application on top
> of sling?

That should already the case, see the hints at [1] . For a very basic
setup, include the following features:

- nosample_base
- oak_persistence_sns

I'm actually using this for prototyping the launcher module.

Of course, there is a larger discussion on whether production-ready
setups should be based on the Sling Starter, but I guess that can wait
a bit.

[1]:
https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-starter#extending-the-sling-starter

Re: Should the sling-project-archetype generate a launcher module?

[Ruben Reusser <rr...@headwire.com>]

Robert,

I think its a good idea - I wonder however if in that case the sling 
sample in the sling starter should be removed and the initial content a 
bit rearranged to allow for a cleaner start of a new application on top 
of sling?

Ruben

On 7/9/2021 5:25 AM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was browsing the sling-project-archetype and was wondering whether we
> should have a 'launcher' module, generated by default, and based on the
> Sling Starter 12 feature model.
>
> I think it would make it simpler to demonstrate 'this is how you start
> a Sling project', with the (hopefully) small added cost of maintenance
> and the caveat
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>