Just got a Response: "Hi Chris, I will double check, but I am almost positive we signed this back when Marvin was actively maintaining flexmojos."
So this Looks extremely positive :-) *amreallyexitedaboutthis* ________________________________________ Von: Miguel Ferreira [miguel.cd.ferre...@hotmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 10:42 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: RE: AW: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer That will be perfect.... and really really useful. Miguel > From: christofer.d...@c-ware.de > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:17:26 +0100 > Subject: AW: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > I just signed up to the Mailinglist and sent an inquiry ... let's see what > they answer. After all ... eventually they allready have signed an Agreement > as Velo used to deploy stuff there ... > > Chris > > ________________________________________ > Von: Avi Kessner [akess...@gmail.com] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 10:01 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > If I knew how/what, I would contact Sonotype. > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I > and the number 47 > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:29 AM, christofer.d...@c-ware.de < > christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > > Well I doubt it would be possible to Setup protected Areas as this is in > > contrast to the "public-repo" idea. But I would still prefer to have the > > fdk deployed somewhere reliable. I know in our Business things Change quite > > fast I wouldn't have immagined giving up my Consultant life and having a > > full employment doing GWT stuff one year ago. But things have changed, > > dramatically reducing the amount of time I have to develop the next Flex > > Maven plugin (Sorry for that). I just want to prevent that one day a > > posting Comes to this list, that the repo is offline because of whatsoever > > reasons. As Sonatype is running Maven Central I doubt that they will go out > > of Business soon, so for me it's currently the most reliable place in > > Addition to the fact that it should work with any Maven Installation out of > > the box. > > > > Chris > > > > ________________________________________ > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 19:48 > > An: dev@flex.apache.org > > Betreff: RE: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > > > > Well at sonatype they do distinguish between SNAPSHOT and Release > > Versions. So the process of updating SNAPSHOTS is far less complicated than > > that of deploying Releases > > > > Indeed but can I upload a zip instead of doing a deploy at sonatype? I > > never > > tried but actually, I wouldn't use the Deployer to do it, too consuming, > > especially for nightly builds. > > Can they / will create a single reader role for ApacheFlex to match the > > license policy requirement we have ? You've probably got more experiences > > with Sonatype and can probably surprise me. > > > > All in all, I prefer to keep control on the non-maven standard deploy > > process instead of being under the umbrella of Sonatype, I can revise my > > POV > > if the answer to those 2 question is YES though :-) > > > > > But I still think that your process of creating individual users will > > introduce some Problems (Settings.xml sharing) > > > > I can't see any other situations than the ones we have now, as explained > > before, today a user from the Adobe site, once accepted the license and > > downloaded an artifact can easily share it with no problems, idem from what > > the installer download, the same if I authorize a user (or a company) to > > download the SDK artifacts to its local/company repo after he accepted the > > licenses from the Installer (with the advantage here that a same artifact > > will be downloaded only once). > > > > Note: The actual license agreement is not nominative, so, I wasn't thinking > > about 1 credential per user but 1 credential for the accepted license > > agreement to match the same idea. > > > > Maybe there are situations I didn't considerate yet ? > > > > > Nevertheless ... I think I should make Flexmojos use the Apache GID ... I > > doubt I will find the time to work much on the new plugin in the near > > future > > and I would like to have promote the Apachiness of Flex ;-) > > > > I would wait for FM-Next, I wouldn't like to waste my time to re-mavenize > > and re-deploy all the Flex/Air SDKs even if in case you do it, I will ;-) > > > > Thanks, > > -Fred > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : christofer.d...@c-ware.de [mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de] > > Envoyé : lundi 28 octobre 2013 16:22 > > À : dev@flex.apache.org > > Objet : AW: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > > > Well at sonatype they do distinguish between SNAPSHOT and Release Versions. > > So the process of updating SNAPSHOTS is far less complicated than that of > > deploying Releases. But I still think that your process of creating > > individual users will introduce some Problems (Settings.xml sharing) > > > > Nevertheless ... I think I should make Flexmojos use the Apache GID ... I > > doubt I will find the time to work much on the new plugin in the near > > future > > and I would like to have promote the Apachiness of Flex ;-) > > > > Chris > > > > ________________________________________ > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 16:07 > > An: dev@flex.apache.org > > Betreff: RE: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > > > Chris, > > > > Do you think Sonatype would allows the creation of specific user granted to > > download the SDK ? It would be nice but I'm not sure, plus I would need to > > deal with their heavy process to deal with snapshot and release on > > non-maven > > built projects, I don't today, I just upload a zip and tomorrow, I will > > just > > tell jenkins to deploy the build (mavenized SDK) to Artifactory, not sure > > it > > is as easy as that with sonatype, at least from what I remember. > > > > What do you think ? > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > From: christofer.d...@c-ware.de > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:18:50 +0100 > > > Subject: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > > > > > Well in that case, I would opt for creating an Apache Flex account at > > sonatype and to Stage and Deploy stuff there ... (The way Velo did it) ... > > I > > guess there is legally no real difference between a Company repo and the > > big > > sonatype repo. Actually we don't have permission to publish stuff in either > > solution. > > > > > > This is also where I deploy the Flexmojos Libs as well as I helped deploy > > the latest FlexUnit release. > > > > > > On the cool side this is probably allready in the list of allmost all > > Major Nexus/Artifactory/Whatsoever instances and therefore there would > > probably not be any Problems with accessing the artifacts. But if such an > > Approach would be taken, I guess I would create a new Major Version of > > Flexmojos, which runs on Apache Flex's GID org.apache.flex instead of the > > current com.adobe.flex. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > > > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 13:42 > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org > > > Betreff: RE: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > > > > > You're right, that's my exp too but from the company I'm working for > > > at the moment, this is the only way as the installer doesn't work from > > > here plus,I don't think an ApacheFlex VM managed by PMCs and almost > > > dedicated to it will be "no-name" for long time :-) > > > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > > > From: christofer.d...@c-ware.de > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:18:48 +0100 > > > > Subject: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > > > > > > > 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 > >
