> Maven artifact repositories are *not* hooked in with SCM > systems. That is, when you compile your project, Maven tries > to satisfy the dependencies by fetching the artifact via a > URL > (http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/commons-lang/jars/commons-lang-1 > .0.jar or > /home/user/java/repository/commons-lang/jars/commons-lang-1.0. > jar). Maven does NOT talk SCM speak. It does not, for > instance, do a SCM sync and then look in your local or remote > repository to satisfy the project dependencies and build the > classpath. > Yes true enough there is no automated SCM integration its all file or HTTP based, but that doesn't mean the content of the repository can be SCM managed. True it would require a manual sync or some custom maven.xml code, but not a big price to pay. [snip] > I think the first way is daft but the argument for it is you > are getting the very LATEST of a branch, not something that > is almost near the HEAD. I think there are more drawbacks > with this than advantages. >
OK so you're mostly concerned about dependencies between internally developed components. I agree that method 1 is daft, surely there must be some conscious for of publication of an internally shared component, even in snapshot form. If you have to checkout & build everything you need, why bother with components at all, just put all the source into a single SCM system & build the lot each time ;-) I guess it depends on the argument in favor. Is this simply to ensure you building against the latest & greatest of anything you rely on? Or to ensure you are building against specific versions of components you rely on? If it's the later, then surely you'd want to tightly control that and have those specific version (branched versions etc) placed into a controlled environment; not built each time from scratch. OK I am way off topic now, so I'll shut up Matthew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
