Re: http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins?

[Jason Dillon]

We could publish the catalog to the m2 repo too, just need to had  
some custom build fluff to attach the xml file as a build artifact.

--jason

On Sep 28, 2006, at 8:46 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:

Like Aaron said, plugin repositories already use a maven repository
layout with the exception of one file -- geronimo-plugins.xml.  That
file is basically a catalog for all the plugins hosted in a
repository.   I discovered something very interesting tonight, which
is that the catalog does not actually have to reside in the plugin
repository.  It can be hosted anywhere as long as its
default-repository element points at a valid repository location.

To me this is great news because it means that we can host a catalog
for ASF plugins wherever we like and use existing maven repositories
without introducing any new files or requiring any changes to them.
From maven's point of view, this makes installing a plugin look like
importing a car into a geronimo assembly.

I prototyped this idea by creating a plugin catalog at :
   http://geronimoplugincentral.org/repository/geronimo-1.1.1/ 
geronimo-plugins.xml
that uses the default-repository element to point at the plugins
already published at :
   http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/
When I loaded that catalog into the plugins portlet I was able to
install the sample plugins just like when I use the default catalog.
You can recreate these results by adding
http://geronimoplugincentral.org/repository/geronimo-1.1.1/ to the
plugin repositories in your 1.1.1 console.

The net of all this is that I would like to take this idea to the next
level by creating catalogs for the ASF plugins at the location Jacek
has suggested :
   http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins/
and point at the plugins already hosted in the maven repos.  I don't
foresee this requiring any changes to maven, but are there any
concerns with this approach?  Feedback and/or assistance from one of
our maven experts would be especially helpful.

Also, I would like to know if there are any plans to publish snapshot
builds.  Seems like I remember that being discussed recently.  Having
this in place alongside the idea described above would greatly
increase our ability to develop and test ASF plugins between release
boundaries.

Best wishes,
Paul


On 9/22/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's one non-standard file (geronimo-plugins.xml), but it has  
to go
in the root directory of the repo and be maintained (updated every
time a plugin in the repo is added, removed, or updated).  I have
heard the Maven guys say they could handle that, but I'm not sure if
they meant "someone could implement something" or "it would work  
right
now" -- I kind of suspect the former.

Thanks,
     Aaron

On 9/22/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand the issues with using the maven repo as a plugin
> repo.  sorry, I haven't been following the discussion that closely.
> I was under the impression that a plugin repo had to include a  
bunch
> of non-maven-recognized files in order to be useful.  If we are  
to do
> this I think we need a clear and definitive opinion from the m2  
folks
> that this will not get in the way of repository maintenance.
>
> My opinion at the moment, based on very little info:
> -- if the maven guys assure us that using a maven repo as a plugin
> repo will never cause problems, lets do that.
> -- if there is a measurable chance it would cause problems now  
or in
> the future, lets have a separate plugin repo.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Sep 22, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
> > On 9/15/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'd like to gather as much suggestions/opinions/advices as  
possible
> >> before calling a vote.
> >
> > I haven't seen any feedback on this thread since last week but  
I think
> > it's still an important topic.  From what I understand, Jacek has
> > suggested that we create a plugin repository at
> > http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins.  I proposed using the  
maven repo
> > as a plugin repository instead but haven't seen any feedback  
on that
> > idea so I'm doubting it has support. Other than floating that  
idea as
> > an alternative (which I'm satisfied has been done) I don't  
really have
> > any concerns with calling a vote at this time, if that's still  
the
> > intention.  Any others out there have opinions on this matter?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Paul
>
>