Currently, NMaven supports not having versions in the file name, but the implementation is creating a divergence from Maven. From the response here, it does look as though we are going to need to continue supporting no versions in the assembly file name. The issue now becomes how we do it in such a way as to bring the implementation more in line with Maven.
If we do away with capabilities/requirements, we could do away with RDF, but we are still left with a fairly big implementation divergence. Throwing out some half-baked thoughts here: the copying of assembly files within the same repo is a nightmare to deal with, so we would still need some uac concept (or shadow repo) that also contains the poms and assemblies w/o versions in file name. If we require pom + additional meta data file, then this will likely be more complicated to manage than RDF. Shane On Nov 14, 2007 2:32 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with James - let's?put the?versioning in the directory structure > or a separate file - in the large corporate environment I work in, we've got > a lot of third-party proprietary binaries that will need to be included in > the repository, and recompiling is not feasible. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 4:33 pm > Subject: Re: Technical Decisions Regarding NMaven? > > > I'm not currently actively engaged in .NET development built via maven, > but I did use the early pre-nmaven plugins which used to be found down in > maven's SVN.? > While working with those I was frequently tweaking the various plugins to > implement tactical fixes, recognizing a proper solution would require the > major architectural changes and momentum shown by nmaven. If you look on the > maven JIRA you will actually see a lot of old obsolete JIRAs I posted > against them.? > ? > While doing this work it became painfully obvious that .NET artifacts > should be stored in the maven repository without versions as part of their > names (or at least moved to their original filename once downloaded by the > resolver). The assembly dependencies listed in the meta-data files within a > strongly named (digitally signed) 3rd party .NET assembly must have the same > name they were built with. When placing strongly named 3rd party dlls into > my maven repo (such as Tibco), I don't get to monkey with the meta-data > within them as they are digitally signed. Furthermore I don't have the > source code with which to build my own. Even if I did have source, its > unreasonable to require me to recompile every 3rd party library I want to > use.? > ? > In short, please please don't do anything which mandates a name change > when placing an arbitrary 3rd party artifact into the repository. If you > have not already done so, I recommend you simply teach the standard maven > artifact resolver to be capable of using the repository directory structure > and pom contents alone to determine version information. If you absolutely > must, introduce an extra meta-data file (say version.xml) to sit alongside > the pom, but please don't impose mandatory inflexible naming convention on > the artifacts. (Java artifacts should continue to place the version in the > filename as its really nice to have when it doesn't cause problems, but this > should become optional.)? > ? > Please forgive me if what I am discussing is overly obvious.? > ? > On Nov 12, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:? > ? > > We do need to come to some technical decisions regarding the > direction > of? > > NMaven. I've taken a hard look at what are the most difficult parts > to > bring? > > in line with Maven core and hope to get some feedback and a > decision > on how? > > we want to approach it.? > >? > > 1) Including the versions in the file name?? > > Pros: Simplifies the resolving and brings it in line with Maven. No > > RDF, no? > > uac directory.? > > Cons: Forces assembly loading equivalent to strong naming. This > means > that? > > you need to recompile the whole assembly chain when making a change > in > a? > > dependency.? > >? > > 2) Remove support for the nmaven-settings and requirement/capability? > > matching?? > > Pros: Faster start up time, due to no reading of settings file and > > matching.? > > Easier integration with Maven core.? > > Cons: No longer can change the framework versions/vendors of builds > > through? > > an external settings file, but rather need to manually configure > the > paths? > > to framework versions and vendors. More manually coding required > when > adding? > > support for new framework versions.? > >? > > The nmaven-settings is particularly good for testing applications > > against? > > multiple build environments and makes it much easier to add support > > for new? > > framework versions, but not so useful for environments that target > a > single? > > environment, which appears to be the general use case for NMaven.? > >? > > 3) Continued support for downloading and running executables from the? > > repository?? > >? > > These three decisions have to do with the reduction of > functionality > to make? > > integration with Maven core easier. In the first case (1), I'm all for? > > including versions in the file-name as I now think that strong > naming > should? > > be required of all open-source projects, but I am not certain if > there > are? > > any individual cases (particularly on corporate projects) where > this > may? > > prove disadvantageous.? > >? > > The second case (2) is a little trickier because we would lose some > > cool? > > functionality, but from my observations, most people are targeting one? > > environment anyway, so they may not mind a little extra > configuration. > My? > > vision for the requirements/capabilities concept requires > eventually > having? > > requirement concepts within the pom.xml file. I moved toward the > RDF > concept? > > which solved this issue of needing to modify the pom but then I was? > > confronted with all the repository work (Archiva, etc) that would > be > needed? > > to eventually support RDF, as well as the concerns with moving away > > from the? > > core Maven implementation. So if (1) goes away, (2) promises only > half > a? > > solution. In that case, we should consider deprecating it.? > >? > > The third case (3) deals with being able to deploy an executable, > its > conf? > > file and dependencies into a repo and then be able to resolve and > run > that? > > exe during a build. In some ways, this is really there to allow > NMaven > to? > > run as a Maven plugin and have all the runners, loaders download? > > automatically and be part of the life-cycle. I think eventually > > everything? > > will be deployed within Maven core (or through an MSI or other > > installer),? > > so there will not be a direct need from NMaven's perspective to > > support? > > this. However, others may find it useful. My preference would be to? > > discontinue this unless someone finds this useful and intends to > use > it.? > >? > > Shane? > ? > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - > http://mail.aol.com >
