Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
May I know who is handling this PR? https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/13 any comments or concerns? Regards Simon 2014-05-30 10:38 GMT+08:00 Wang YunFeng wangyf2...@gmail.com: Hi, Karl, Real case happened in our company is: There are bunch of repositories using. For specific application, need to limit specific set of repositories. Those invalid repositories could be defined anywhere. like settings.xml, application's pom files or even in dependency's pom files. So point is: this rule will ban repositories from maven session level, instead of only application pom and its parent. Also attached some comments below from Paul. I create a demo project to show how to use this rule: 1. clone https://github.com/wangyf2010/maven-enforcer, mvn clean install -DskipTests it. 2. clone https://github.com/wangyf2010/maven-shared/tree/banned-repos/maven-dependency-analyzer 3. run mvn enforcer:enforce for maven-dependency-analyzer. Of course, you can try to add banned repositories into settings.xml as well. Regards Simon I think banning repositories is a great idea. The example givem may not be too useful -- the system architects should just turn off access to the repo they don't want anyone to acesss -- but I more than once wanted to stop some live repos (out of my control) from being accessed. +1. Cheers, Paul 2014-05-30 2:36 GMT+08:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise khmarba...@gmx.de: Hi Simon, after diving into this a little bit more... Can you give an real example of the use case for your rule, cause if you are in an enterprise environment you should use already a repository manager which means only having a mirror entry in your settings.xml (usually looks like this here: http://books.sonatype.com/ nexus-book/reference/maven-sect-single-group.html) no repositories in your pom's (which can be checked by the requireNoRepositories rule). Apart from that I have tried your rule, but unfortunately it does not identify repositories defined in the pom file (ok that was not the intention) nor does it realize that i have defined supplemental repositories in my settings.xml file May be you can give an full example in which cases it will help...or may be i mistaken things here... Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On 5/29/14 4:24 PM, Wang, Simon wrote: Hi, Robert, Karl asked same question, please refer below mail about this question. Hope that help. Regards Simon Hi, Karl, Thanks for your comments. I did dig into requireNoRepositories.html, the purpose for that rule is: detect whether pom and pom’s parents contains repositories definition. That make sense to guide users to use correct convention (not define repositories in pom files). But “BannedRepositories” is different purpose, it’s just like “BannedDependencies”. This rule is major for those “maven repository migration” case. Some users used to have old repositories, those repositories might be defined in pom.xml or settings.xml. This rule could benefit on these cases a lot. It will detect banned repositories from maven session context instead of only pom.xml and parents. After all, requireNoRepositories.html is trying to help users to follow correct maven convention. but “BannedRepositories” is trying to avoid misuse incorrect repositories. Especially in enterprise environment. Regards Simon Hi Simon, I have taken a look into your suggestions I have a couple of thoughts about it ... First there exists already a rule to avoid repositories ( http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/ requireNoRepositories.html) which can be used and is has an option to allow particular repositories by using a white-list of allowed repository based on the repository id. like this: requireNoRepositories allowedRepositories allowedRepositorycodehausSnapshots/allowedRepository /allowedRepositories ... /requireNoRepositories So the question is why adding a complete new rule instead of enhancing the existing by your idea using the url as identification for the repository which i think is a really good idea...so users are not able to forge the repository they use by using a different id only the url is used to identify the allowed repositories. Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On May 29, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Robert Scholte rfscho...@apache.org wrote: http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/ requireNoRepositories.html seems to cover this, right? Robert Op Wed, 28 May 2014 22:19:07 +0200 schreef Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com: Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
Hi Simon, you seemed to be very impatient... Kind regards Karl-Heinz... BTW: I will take care within the next few days... May I know who is handling this PR? https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/13 any comments or concerns? Regards Simon 2014-05-30 10:38 GMT+08:00 Wang YunFeng wangyf2...@gmail.com mailto:wangyf2...@gmail.com: Hi, Karl, Real case happened in our company is: There are bunch of repositories using. For specific application, need to limit specific set of repositories. Those invalid repositories could be defined anywhere. like settings.xml, application's pom files or even in dependency's pom files. So point is: this rule will ban repositories from maven session level, instead of only application pom and its parent. Also attached some comments below from Paul. I create a demo project to show how to use this rule: 1. clone https://github.com/wangyf2010/maven-enforcer, mvn clean install -DskipTests it. 2. clone https://github.com/wangyf2010/maven-shared/tree/banned-repos/maven-dependency-analyzer 3. run mvn enforcer:enforce for maven-dependency-analyzer. Of course, you can try to add banned repositories into settings.xml as well. Regards Simon I think banning repositories is a great idea. The example givem may not be too useful -- the system architects should just turn off access to the repo they don't want anyone to acesss -- but I more than once wanted to stop some live repos (out of my control) from being accessed. +1. Cheers, Paul 2014-05-30 2:36 GMT+08:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise khmarba...@gmx.de mailto:khmarba...@gmx.de: Hi Simon, after diving into this a little bit more... Can you give an real example of the use case for your rule, cause if you are in an enterprise environment you should use already a repository manager which means only having a mirror entry in your settings.xml (usually looks like this here: http://books.sonatype.com/__nexus-book/reference/maven-__sect-single-group.html http://books.sonatype.com/nexus-book/reference/maven-sect-single-group.html) no repositories in your pom's (which can be checked by the requireNoRepositories rule). Apart from that I have tried your rule, but unfortunately it does not identify repositories defined in the pom file (ok that was not the intention) nor does it realize that i have defined supplemental repositories in my settings.xml file May be you can give an full example in which cases it will help...or may be i mistaken things here... Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On 5/29/14 4:24 PM, Wang, Simon wrote: Hi, Robert, Karl asked same question, please refer below mail about this question. Hope that help. Regards Simon Hi, Karl, Thanks for your comments. I did dig into requireNoRepositories.html, the purpose for that rule is: detect whether pom and pom’s parents contains repositories definition. That make sense to guide users to use correct convention (not define repositories in pom files). But “BannedRepositories” is different purpose, it’s just like “BannedDependencies”. This rule is major for those “maven repository migration” case. Some users used to have old repositories, those repositories might be defined in pom.xml or settings.xml. This rule could benefit on these cases a lot. It will detect banned repositories from maven session context instead of only pom.xml and parents. After all, requireNoRepositories.html is trying to help users to follow correct maven convention. but “BannedRepositories” is trying to avoid misuse incorrect repositories. Especially in enterprise environment. Regards Simon Hi Simon, I have taken a look into your suggestions I have a couple of thoughts about it ... First there exists already a rule to avoid repositories (http://maven.apache.org/__enforcer/enforcer-rules/__requireNoRepositories.html http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/requireNoRepositories.html) which can be used and is has an option to allow particular repositories by using a white-list of allowed repository based on the repository id. like this: requireNoRepositories allowedRepositories allowedRepository__codehausSnapshots/__allowedRepository
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
^_^ sorry for that, just don't know what's the status for it. Regards Simon 2014-06-12 5:54 GMT+08:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise khmarba...@gmx.de: Hi Simon, you seemed to be very impatient... Kind regards Karl-Heinz... BTW: I will take care within the next few days... May I know who is handling this PR? https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/13 any comments or concerns? Regards Simon 2014-05-30 10:38 GMT+08:00 Wang YunFeng wangyf2...@gmail.com mailto:wangyf2...@gmail.com: Hi, Karl, Real case happened in our company is: There are bunch of repositories using. For specific application, need to limit specific set of repositories. Those invalid repositories could be defined anywhere. like settings.xml, application's pom files or even in dependency's pom files. So point is: this rule will ban repositories from maven session level, instead of only application pom and its parent. Also attached some comments below from Paul. I create a demo project to show how to use this rule: 1. clone https://github.com/wangyf2010/maven-enforcer, mvn clean install -DskipTests it. 2. clone https://github.com/wangyf2010/maven-shared/tree/banned- repos/maven-dependency-analyzer 3. run mvn enforcer:enforce for maven-dependency-analyzer. Of course, you can try to add banned repositories into settings.xml as well. Regards Simon I think banning repositories is a great idea. The example givem may not be too useful -- the system architects should just turn off access to the repo they don't want anyone to acesss -- but I more than once wanted to stop some live repos (out of my control) from being accessed. +1. Cheers, Paul 2014-05-30 2:36 GMT+08:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise khmarba...@gmx.de mailto:khmarba...@gmx.de: Hi Simon, after diving into this a little bit more... Can you give an real example of the use case for your rule, cause if you are in an enterprise environment you should use already a repository manager which means only having a mirror entry in your settings.xml (usually looks like this here: http://books.sonatype.com/__nexus-book/reference/maven-__ sect-single-group.html http://books.sonatype.com/nexus-book/reference/maven- sect-single-group.html) no repositories in your pom's (which can be checked by the requireNoRepositories rule). Apart from that I have tried your rule, but unfortunately it does not identify repositories defined in the pom file (ok that was not the intention) nor does it realize that i have defined supplemental repositories in my settings.xml file May be you can give an full example in which cases it will help...or may be i mistaken things here... Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On 5/29/14 4:24 PM, Wang, Simon wrote: Hi, Robert, Karl asked same question, please refer below mail about this question. Hope that help. Regards Simon Hi, Karl, Thanks for your comments. I did dig into requireNoRepositories.html, the purpose for that rule is: detect whether pom and pom’s parents contains repositories definition. That make sense to guide users to use correct convention (not define repositories in pom files). But “BannedRepositories” is different purpose, it’s just like “BannedDependencies”. This rule is major for those “maven repository migration” case. Some users used to have old repositories, those repositories might be defined in pom.xml or settings.xml. This rule could benefit on these cases a lot. It will detect banned repositories from maven session context instead of only pom.xml and parents. After all, requireNoRepositories.html is trying to help users to follow correct maven convention. but “BannedRepositories” is trying to avoid misuse incorrect repositories. Especially in enterprise environment. Regards Simon Hi Simon, I have taken a look into your suggestions I have a couple of thoughts about it ... First there exists already a rule to avoid repositories (http://maven.apache.org/__enforcer/enforcer-rules/__ requireNoRepositories.html http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/ requireNoRepositories.html) which can be used and is has an option to allow particular repositories by using a white-list
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
Thanks for your comments, Mirko! This feature would be helpful for those enterprise maven developers. That would be great could include it into standard rules and benefit more enterprise users. Regards Simon On May 29, 2014, at 4:19 AM, Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/requireNoRepositories.html seems to cover this, right? Robert Op Wed, 28 May 2014 22:19:07 +0200 schreef Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com: Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
Hi, Robert, Karl asked same question, please refer below mail about this question. Hope that help. Regards Simon Hi, Karl, Thanks for your comments. I did dig into requireNoRepositories.html, the purpose for that rule is: detect whether pom and pom’s parents contains repositories definition. That make sense to guide users to use correct convention (not define repositories in pom files). But “BannedRepositories” is different purpose, it’s just like “BannedDependencies”. This rule is major for those “maven repository migration” case. Some users used to have old repositories, those repositories might be defined in pom.xml or settings.xml. This rule could benefit on these cases a lot. It will detect banned repositories from maven session context instead of only pom.xml and parents. After all, requireNoRepositories.html is trying to help users to follow correct maven convention. but “BannedRepositories” is trying to avoid misuse incorrect repositories. Especially in enterprise environment. Regards Simon Hi Simon, I have taken a look into your suggestions I have a couple of thoughts about it ... First there exists already a rule to avoid repositories (http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/requireNoRepositories.html) which can be used and is has an option to allow particular repositories by using a white-list of allowed repository based on the repository id. like this: requireNoRepositories allowedRepositories allowedRepositorycodehausSnapshots/allowedRepository /allowedRepositories ... /requireNoRepositories So the question is why adding a complete new rule instead of enhancing the existing by your idea using the url as identification for the repository which i think is a really good idea...so users are not able to forge the repository they use by using a different id only the url is used to identify the allowed repositories. Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On May 29, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Robert Scholte rfscho...@apache.org wrote: http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/requireNoRepositories.html seems to cover this, right? Robert Op Wed, 28 May 2014 22:19:07 +0200 schreef Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com: Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
I think banning repositories is a great idea. The example givem may not be too useful -- the system architects should just turn off access to the repo they don't want anyone to acesss -- but I more than once wanted to stop some live repos (out of my control) from being accessed. +1. Cheers, Paul On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Wang, Simon wangyf2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Robert, Karl asked same question, please refer below mail about this question. Hope that help. Regards Simon Hi, Karl, Thanks for your comments. I did dig into requireNoRepositories.html, the purpose for that rule is: detect whether pom and pom’s parents contains repositories definition. That make sense to guide users to use correct convention (not define repositories in pom files). But “BannedRepositories” is different purpose, it’s just like “BannedDependencies”. This rule is major for those “maven repository migration” case. Some users used to have old repositories, those repositories might be defined in pom.xml or settings.xml. This rule could benefit on these cases a lot. It will detect banned repositories from maven session context instead of only pom.xml and parents. After all, requireNoRepositories.html is trying to help users to follow correct maven convention. but “BannedRepositories” is trying to avoid misuse incorrect repositories. Especially in enterprise environment. Regards Simon Hi Simon, I have taken a look into your suggestions I have a couple of thoughts about it ... First there exists already a rule to avoid repositories ( http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/requireNoRepositories.html) which can be used and is has an option to allow particular repositories by using a white-list of allowed repository based on the repository id. like this: requireNoRepositories allowedRepositories allowedRepositorycodehausSnapshots/allowedRepository /allowedRepositories ... /requireNoRepositories So the question is why adding a complete new rule instead of enhancing the existing by your idea using the url as identification for the repository which i think is a really good idea...so users are not able to forge the repository they use by using a different id only the url is used to identify the allowed repositories. Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On May 29, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Robert Scholte rfscho...@apache.org wrote: http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/requireNoRepositories.htmlseems to cover this, right? Robert Op Wed, 28 May 2014 22:19:07 +0200 schreef Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com: Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
extra-enforcer-rules is just there for a number of use cases: * Rules that have non-ASLv2 compatible licenses * Rules that are somewhat experimental (such rules should not be put in the default package) until they are considered developed well enough to migrate to enforcer-rules * Rules being developed by people who have not got a Maven project commit bit *yet* but would like to demonstrate that they deserve one after getting the *easier to get* codehaus mojo commit bit. (Mojo's commit bit is got by standing up and asking... the devs then vote and there you go... Maven's commit bit is got by demonstrating to the PMC that you are worthy and then the PMC deciding to invite you... different members of the PMC have different views on what counts as worthy - which is the way it should be ;-) ) On 28 May 2014 21:19, Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
Hi Simon, after diving into this a little bit more... Can you give an real example of the use case for your rule, cause if you are in an enterprise environment you should use already a repository manager which means only having a mirror entry in your settings.xml (usually looks like this here: http://books.sonatype.com/nexus-book/reference/maven-sect-single-group.html) no repositories in your pom's (which can be checked by the requireNoRepositories rule). Apart from that I have tried your rule, but unfortunately it does not identify repositories defined in the pom file (ok that was not the intention) nor does it realize that i have defined supplemental repositories in my settings.xml file May be you can give an full example in which cases it will help...or may be i mistaken things here... Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On 5/29/14 4:24 PM, Wang, Simon wrote: Hi, Robert, Karl asked same question, please refer below mail about this question. Hope that help. Regards Simon Hi, Karl, Thanks for your comments. I did dig into requireNoRepositories.html, the purpose for that rule is: detect whether pom and pom’s parents contains repositories definition. That make sense to guide users to use correct convention (not define repositories in pom files). But “BannedRepositories” is different purpose, it’s just like “BannedDependencies”. This rule is major for those “maven repository migration” case. Some users used to have old repositories, those repositories might be defined in pom.xml or settings.xml. This rule could benefit on these cases a lot. It will detect banned repositories from maven session context instead of only pom.xml and parents. After all, requireNoRepositories.html is trying to help users to follow correct maven convention. but “BannedRepositories” is trying to avoid misuse incorrect repositories. Especially in enterprise environment. Regards Simon Hi Simon, I have taken a look into your suggestions I have a couple of thoughts about it ... First there exists already a rule to avoid repositories (http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/requireNoRepositories.html) which can be used and is has an option to allow particular repositories by using a white-list of allowed repository based on the repository id. like this: requireNoRepositories allowedRepositories allowedRepositorycodehausSnapshots/allowedRepository /allowedRepositories ... /requireNoRepositories So the question is why adding a complete new rule instead of enhancing the existing by your idea using the url as identification for the repository which i think is a really good idea...so users are not able to forge the repository they use by using a different id only the url is used to identify the allowed repositories. Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On May 29, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Robert Scholte rfscho...@apache.org wrote: http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/requireNoRepositories.html seems to cover this, right? Robert Op Wed, 28 May 2014 22:19:07 +0200 schreef Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com: Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
Hi, Karl, Real case happened in our company is: There are bunch of repositories using. For specific application, need to limit specific set of repositories. Those invalid repositories could be defined anywhere. like settings.xml, application's pom files or even in dependency's pom files. So point is: this rule will ban repositories from maven session level, instead of only application pom and its parent. Also attached some comments below from Paul. I create a demo project to show how to use this rule: 1. clone https://github.com/wangyf2010/maven-enforcer, mvn clean install -DskipTests it. 2. clone https://github.com/wangyf2010/maven-shared/tree/banned-repos/maven-dependency-analyzer 3. run mvn enforcer:enforce for maven-dependency-analyzer. Of course, you can try to add banned repositories into settings.xml as well. Regards Simon I think banning repositories is a great idea. The example givem may not be too useful -- the system architects should just turn off access to the repo they don't want anyone to acesss -- but I more than once wanted to stop some live repos (out of my control) from being accessed. +1. Cheers, Paul 2014-05-30 2:36 GMT+08:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise khmarba...@gmx.de: Hi Simon, after diving into this a little bit more... Can you give an real example of the use case for your rule, cause if you are in an enterprise environment you should use already a repository manager which means only having a mirror entry in your settings.xml (usually looks like this here: http://books.sonatype.com/ nexus-book/reference/maven-sect-single-group.html) no repositories in your pom's (which can be checked by the requireNoRepositories rule). Apart from that I have tried your rule, but unfortunately it does not identify repositories defined in the pom file (ok that was not the intention) nor does it realize that i have defined supplemental repositories in my settings.xml file May be you can give an full example in which cases it will help...or may be i mistaken things here... Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On 5/29/14 4:24 PM, Wang, Simon wrote: Hi, Robert, Karl asked same question, please refer below mail about this question. Hope that help. Regards Simon Hi, Karl, Thanks for your comments. I did dig into requireNoRepositories.html, the purpose for that rule is: detect whether pom and pom’s parents contains repositories definition. That make sense to guide users to use correct convention (not define repositories in pom files). But “BannedRepositories” is different purpose, it’s just like “BannedDependencies”. This rule is major for those “maven repository migration” case. Some users used to have old repositories, those repositories might be defined in pom.xml or settings.xml. This rule could benefit on these cases a lot. It will detect banned repositories from maven session context instead of only pom.xml and parents. After all, requireNoRepositories.html is trying to help users to follow correct maven convention. but “BannedRepositories” is trying to avoid misuse incorrect repositories. Especially in enterprise environment. Regards Simon Hi Simon, I have taken a look into your suggestions I have a couple of thoughts about it ... First there exists already a rule to avoid repositories ( http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/ requireNoRepositories.html) which can be used and is has an option to allow particular repositories by using a white-list of allowed repository based on the repository id. like this: requireNoRepositories allowedRepositories allowedRepositorycodehausSnapshots/allowedRepository /allowedRepositories ... /requireNoRepositories So the question is why adding a complete new rule instead of enhancing the existing by your idea using the url as identification for the repository which i think is a really good idea...so users are not able to forge the repository they use by using a different id only the url is used to identify the allowed repositories. Kind regards Karl-Heinz Marbaise On May 29, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Robert Scholte rfscho...@apache.org wrote: http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/ requireNoRepositories.html seems to cover this, right? Robert Op Wed, 28 May 2014 22:19:07 +0200 schreef Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com: Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
enforcer-rules: standard vs. extra-enforcer-rules
Hello everybody, there is an outstanding MENFORCER-193[0] request for a new standard rule, which will allow to ban repositories. What is your opinion about adding new standard rules in enforcer vs. adding to Mojo's extra-enforcer-rules? Regards Mirko [0] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-193 -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
