Hi Stefano !
Stefano Bagnara a écrit :
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
So, now, we have some points we need to discuss :
- the need of a local repo, where all the jars are stored, and
versionned, seems to me mandatory
I think that you don't need versioning when using maven repositories.
Maven repository expect that each new version of a jar get a new name
and you never override it (it caches artifacts by they version).
Imho you just need a repository, you don't need a versioned repository.
You should also make sure that you always use specific version in
"dependency/version" and never use an open range.
This is an assertion that does not resist to facts. If anyone just
change a pom.xml file just because there were something wrong ( and
regarding the number of jars in a full maven repo, and all the
dependencies any jars have ), this is more than likely to occurs. Let
say this will occur (and it has already occured). At least, the pom.xml
and .sha1 related with any jars should be versionned, but then to
guarantee that the jar remains available, then the jar itslef should be
versionned.
I know this seems to me a little bit extermist, but at the end, this is
the way to go. And considering that jars are not changing very often, a
versionned repo seems just common sense to me. For the sake of reliable
builds.
[..]
Feel free to express what you think, and it can be as radical as
"Let's move to ant + ivy". I think that some decision will lead to a
vote at some point.
wdyt ?
What do you think that ivy repository will fix from maven2 repository?
Nothing at all. It's just totell people who may want to switch to ant :
"guys, it's ant PLUS ivy, not ant alone". The problem here is not maven
against ant, it's more or less the way we should manage this project.
But if we found 10 people wanting to help building a reliable build
system that want to switch to ant+ivy and only a couple of maven
afficionados, then there is a clear balance for ant+ivy. The problem we
have is more or less competence. I'm definitively not a maven or ant
guru, and we really are loosing a lot of time fixing those build issues,
and it's occuring too often. So just consider this mail as a SOS, not a
rant against maven.
If you need the ant way to do thing, you can store the jar in the lib
folder and declare the dependency scope as "system" so maven2 does not
use the repository but read the jar from the folder you specified.
Thanks for the trick ! Do you have any pointer to documentation about
this feature ?
Furthermore if you switch to ant+ivy you have to store both ant and
ivy versions in your repository or build with that specific release.
That's very true.
If there is a bug in an ant-plugin you want it to be reproduced later,
when building that version, even if the new ant-plugin fixed the bug,
right?
yep. Because if we have had a bug in a plugin (ant plugin or maven
plugin), but ifg the build succeeded, then I want to use this buggy
version. You must consider that if the bug was serious, then a
workaround has been used, and this workaround will certainly fail with a
new version of a downloaded plugin, breaking the build. What I mean is
when a version builds, then it must build for ever, unless you change
something, which should not happen. The reason behind this "weird" way
of using bugy plugins is that when you need to build an old version to
fix a bug, generally speaking, this is urgent ( your client used a very
old version, then a bug suddenly poped out, an your client need a quick
fix. If you spend hours -or even days- to fix the build system itself,
then you are loosing time - and sometime a client ;)
Stefano
Emmanuel
PS: As far as I know, I see that James project is using a /lib directory
to store all the jars it uses, so I assume that it is somehow related to
the issue we currently try to address. And I don't think that the James
project has done the wrong choice, IMHO :)
