Switching to the platform descriptor format generated with a new goal

[aloubyansky]

This PR is switching the platform to the new JSON descriptor format generated by a new Maven plugin goal.
The CI is expected to fail until we release Quarkus core version containing the goal.

[maxandersen]

What's the new format ? Didn't we say we would make forward compatible changes to it or is the issue our readers don't allow new elements ?

[aloubyansky]

You've actually seen it quite a few times and it was mentioned explicitly that it's a completely new format. It's not backward compatible and there is no point to adapt our legacy readers. The legacy platform descriptor API has been completely removed from the core.

[maxandersen]

I thought the new format was for the registry with multiple new things not the individual platform.

Now I'm curious in more detail what changed as the old one was already quite generic.

[maxandersen]

So - just so I grok the impact here - if users upgrade to new quarkus core it will fail if they don't use new quarkus platform either.

And likewise, impossible to downgrade core with a new platform ?

That seems quite a big breaking change imo or am I missing something here ?

[maxandersen]

And if necessary its necessary I just haven't seen it mentioned and highlighted so we should make sure we notify/document the rationale giving against our general goal of not breaking things between versions abruptly.

[aloubyansky]

So - just so I grok the impact here - if users upgrade to new quarkus core it will fail if they don't use new quarkus platform either.

AFAIK, the new format will appear in 1.13.0. Our tools work in the minor version range. So users upgrading from 1.12.x to 1.13.x will be fine.

And likewise, impossible to downgrade core with a new platform ?

AFAIR, we have never done that across minor versions. Changing micros aren't going to be affected by the change.

That seems quite a big breaking change imo or am I missing something here ?

That's right, you aren't missing anything in that regard.

[maxandersen]

AFAIR, we have never done that across minor versions. Changing micros aren't going to be affected by the change.

just because we haven't in past doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the impact.

i.e. users can by accident end up in case where they have 0.11 platform and 0.13 core .something we before would handle (more) gracefully.

when/if kogito/camel or others have platforms that uses older versions we dont want to force breakage if can be avoided. i;ll look more into it tomorrow but on surface this sounds more like a 2.0 change than a 0.13 kind a change - but lets explore. hopefully im just seeing things you already considered and have ways to handle already :)

[maxandersen]

the biggger related fix is quarkusio/quarkus#15413

[aloubyansky]

AFAIR, we have never done that across minor versions. Changing micros aren't going to be affected by the change.

just because we haven't in past doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the impact.

Right. It wasn't a careless act. I was fully aware of the changes. There were good reasons too.

i.e. users can by accident end up in case where they have 0.11 platform and 0.13 core .something we before would handle (more) gracefully.

I don't think we ever supported this kind of mix. I think we are on the way to but not today, afaik.

when/if kogito/camel or others have platforms that uses older versions we dont want to force breakage if can be avoided.

Sure. If there are such plans today, I wasn't aware of those. Let me know.

i;ll look more into it tomorrow but on surface this sounds more like a 2.0 change than a 0.13 kind a change - but lets explore. hopefully im just seeing things you already considered and have ways to handle already :)

[maxandersen]

The issue I mention last week of platform for kogito product. Not a new concern (same happens if external user/company makes a platform) just that it is now becoming a reality so not just a "what if" scenario anymore.

[aloubyansky]

You mentioned that too late, the PR has already been merged. My point was I didn't know any details about that before. So I couldn't take anything into account.

[maxandersen]

Late ? We just need to consider what impact it will have and adjust accordingly.

[aloubyansky]

Sure, we can always adjust. It's still late in terms of collecting requirements to take them into account implementing significant changes.

[gsmet]

So what should we do with this PR? From my point of view, we didn't support using an old platform with a new Quarkus so I would be in favor of merging it.

And if we want to support that now, we would support it from 1.13 and onward.

Does it make sense?

[maxandersen]

LGTM - if spotted earlier i would have suggested we made a format that wouldnt break; i.e. not change bom from array to string but its not worth risking on now.

[aloubyansky]

Thanks