Yes, that is why I would still want the mavenizer available. However with continuous deployment being more popular, and the availability of free jenkin servers, I would not assume that everyone who needs maven has a team to deal with it. On 28 Oct 2013 13:21, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> But from my experiance it is usually more difficult to convince the > Company-Repo admins to add a "no-name" repo as source. At least most of the > companies I've worked for. And deploying of a new Flex Version would > probably not be done by any ordinary developer, but by one Special Person > that is permitted to do so. > > Chris > > ________________________________________ > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 10:53 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: RE: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > 1- I'm short of time at the moment and that's a long run even without > thinking to integrate with the actual code > 2- Anyway, before I integrate anything in the actual code of the installer, > its code needs to be refactored > 3- There's no jar produced at the moment for the converter, that something > to be considered too. > 4- It's not allowed in every company the user can manage the repo he wants > to access, in big ones, he has to go by the company one which in return, > proxied the repo they choose. > > -Fred > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : christofer.d...@c-ware.de [mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de] > Envoyé : lundi 28 octobre 2013 10:43 > À : dev@flex.apache.org > Objet : AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > Still I can't really see what would be the Problem to add the mavenizer to > the Installer? I guess this would resolve any legal Problems. I do see some > Major Speed improvement Option to Switch the Deployer to use Mavens wagon > instead of making hundreds of mvn-calls, but adding the mavenizer to the > installer still seems to be the best Option from my Point of view. > > Chris > > ________________________________________ > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 10:17 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: RE: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > Hi Justin, > > >What to stop users sharing that URL and/or user credentials around? > > I thought about it too and ended to think I don't want to add more > restrictions than what exists today, I mean today, once you accepted a > license and downloaded an Adobe Artifact, you can share it as you like, > that's not even nominative. > I just want to replicate the actual security, so, yes, if an user wants to > share the credentials, it can do it, as it can do it with the artifact > itself. > > > As long as you make it clear that these are not official releases and > > for > development use only as per Apache policy. > > Np, it will be suffixed with "-SNAPSHOT " with means in Maven, non-released > > > Could it cope with it load and the costs that is likely to incur > > (assume > 100 or 200 installs a day)? Who owns and maintains the server? Could the > apache Flex PMC be given access to it? > > From what I understand, I'm not charged or should be very low rate, I will > verify anyway, can't do it now, windowsazure has a 401. > I own and maintain the server, it is the same kind than the Erik ones, it > will serve me for some of my devs too (probably) or / and to test the SDK > RCs and I can give access to PMCs who ask me. > > Thanks, > -Fred > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Envoyé : lundi 28 > octobre 2013 10:03 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: Add Mavenizer > functionality to Installer > > Hi, > > > From the Installer, users already have to accept licenses for the > > third party artifacts, for those users I can grant access to a online > > maven repo which serves the Mavenized SDKs > What to stop users sharing that URL and/or user credentials around? > > > I can even add the lasts nightly mavenized build versions. > As long as you make it clear that these are not official releases and for > development use only as per Apache policy. > > > The server exist today as it serves me, it serves up to the 4.11 > > version > Could it cope with it load and the costs that is likely to incur (assume > 100 > or 200 installs a day)? Who owns and maintains the server? Could the apache > Flex PMC be given access to it? > > Thanks, > Justin
