Hi,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Mark Derricutt <m...@talios.com> wrote: > In last weeks dev hangout I raised the idea of removing <repository> > elements due to some issues with them regarding mirrors etc which was > somewhat negatively received, however I've been thinking about this a bit > and came up with an interesting idea earlier in the night whilst at a gig. > > One of the problems I'm often seeing is that: > > 1) a project uploads their artefact to a repository ( mostly maven central > ) > 2) 90% of their dependencies are available from the repository in question > 3) 1 critical dependency is not - which ultimately means you can't > build......if you have a mirror setup > > (usually because you've not noticed a <repository> declaration which you > need to configure in your nexus/arifactory/archiva etc. ) > > The idea I had is three fold: > > 1) Fallback on original repository when a mirror doesn't resolve > > When maven is checking for a repository for an artefact, and using a > mirror - if that artefact can't be found, maven should retry using the > original repository directly with builds warnings. > Don't forget here that some companies will want to enforce (for various reasons) to use specific repository and only it. > > 2) Deploy transitive runtime dependencies along with your release > > We currently have the <distributionManagement> section of a pom declaring > the deploy repository. If we added a new `deploy-dependencies` goal to some > plugin and updated maven-release-plugin with a this in its default > deployment goals, I think some magical things could happen: > > - Find the _runtime_ dependency tree of your project > - Check which artefacts don't exist on the deployment repo > - Deploy those artefacts out to the repository - essentially an implicit > mirroring your dependencies. > > At the same time, modify the POM reader to add the repository defined in > `<distributionManagement>` as a `<repository>` for discovering dependencies. > My main concern with current POM entries about repositories is that we are hardcoding some information that may change in the future ( the repo moved, sources moved ...). Thus depending for what you are looking at an old POM it may be a problem or not. > > Any thoughts on this? Since it's now 12:32am, _hopefully_ I'll be awake in > time to join the discussion tomorrow to raise this idea. > > Cheers, > Mark > cheers -- ----- Arnaud Héritier http://aheritier.net Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com Twitter/Skype : aheritier
