On 14 Nov 07, at 6:00 PM 14 Nov 07, Shane Isbell wrote:
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.
Is no version in the artifacts the only way .NET functions well?
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.
What metadata do you need to store? More then simple properties?
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
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
