On 4/24/07, Phill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think you want the tarball in maven. Personally I would not look for it there or go searching my local repo to open and get examples, docs etc. Can we keep the tarball on OpenJPA and the minimal compile an execution jar on Maven. Keep in mind that this jar is replicated on maven, corp repo then local repo - a lot of wasted space if not absolutely necessary. Phill
I agree, if we put the tarball in a different location then we should remove it from the maven repository at the same time. It shouldn't be too tricky to separate the tarball generation from the normal build processing (in which case maven won't deploy the tarball). Assuming this is the right way to go, where would be put the tarball? -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 24, 2007 10:49 PM To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Artifact names > Personally, I think both are valuable as they serve different needs > for different development environments. I agree completely. Just wondering if we should be publishing the tarball via mvn.
-Patrick
-- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:41 PM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Artifact names > > > It's a fair question -- if you want people to be able to sync > dependencies from Maven directly into their projects via pom.xml > references, then the Maven repository is the way to go. > > If you want to distribute a single package that contains everything > (binaries, docs, samples, etc) needed to get started with OpenJPA and > doesn't require the user to use the Maven project model, then the > source / binary zip archives are the way to go. > > Personally, I think both are valuable as they serve different needs > for different development environments. > > Eddie > > > On 4/24/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote: > > > > > Hmm. I wonder if we're really using Maven repositories correctly. > > > Do we > > > need our dist to be in Maven at all? > > > > We don't need to. It was just easy to set up that way. > > > > > > > I do think that we should have something that's easy to depend on > > > that pulls in the openjpa-persistence-jdbc module, without making > > > people have to know about that level of modularity detail. > > > > Why can't they just depend on openjpa-all? That brings > everything in... > > > > > > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > -- > > > Patrick Linskey > > > BEA Systems, Inc. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > __ > > > _ > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > > > contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its > subsidiaries and > > > affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > > > copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for > > > the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you > > > are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in > > > error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:05 PM > > >> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: Artifact names > > >> > > >> > > >> +1 -- I'd prefer to have the binary / source uber-archives > > >> outside of the Maven repro, though that's more due to convention > > >> than anything else. > > >> > > >> I agree that it's not worth worrying about this for 0.9.7. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Eddie > > >> > > >> > > >> On 4/24/07, Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> I'm finally getting back to this thread, sorry for the delay. > > >>> > > >>> I got a similar answer from the maven mailing list. > Their stance > > >>> is that the maven repository is for artifacts which are used by > > >>> maven, which wouldn't be the same as a final destination for our > > >> distribution. > > >>> > > >>> I'm in favor of moving the source and binary archives to a > > >> different > > >>> location, if there's a good spot available to us. Does > > >> anyone object > > >>> to putting the releases somewhere outside of a maven repository? > > >>> > > >>> I don't think this is urgent for the 0.9.7 release since we > > >> can't get > > >>> rid of the ugly -project names now, but it might be > nice to have a > > >>> solution for when OpenJPA graduates. > > >>> > > >>> On 4/12/07, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> In Geronimo, we publish to the maven repo as maven likes, > > >> but when > > >>>> we publish to the apache distribution mirrors (for website > > >>>> downloads), we name the files as we like. > > >>>> > > >>>> -dain > > >>>> > > >>>> On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Michael Dick wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'm hitting a bit of a snag with the staging repository for > > >>>>> release 0.9.7. > > >>>>> Recently we made changes to remove -project from our > > >> the zip file > > >>>>> names. The problem is that the maven install and deploy goals > > >>>>> ignore the names we provide and generate their own names ( > > >>>>> openjpa-project-0.9.7-incubating-xxx.zip). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I searched through the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > >>>>> archives and it turns out this is a fairly common problem - > > >>>>> usually resulting in a response of "working as > > >> designed". Here's > > >>>>> an example > > >>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Installation-and-deployment- > > >>>>> tf1449780s177.html#a3916784 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Does anyone vehemently object to putting -project > back into the > > >>>>> names for the 0.9.7 release? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The only other way I know of to fix the names that > get deployed > > >>>>> would be to change the artifactId in the pom files (basically > > >>>>> switch openjpa with openjpa-project). Switching the > names will > > >>>>> impact anyone who has a dependency on the base > openjpa project. > > >>>>> They'll have to update the version number anyway, but it will > > >>>>> still be a little confusing if they used to depend on > > >>>>> openjpa-0.9.6 and now they depend on openjpa-project-0.9.7. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> -Michael Dick > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> -Michael Dick > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > > > contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its > subsidiaries and > > > affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > > > copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended > solely for > > > the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you > > > are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in > > > error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
-- -Michael Dick
