Hi,
On 3/21/15 3:57 PM, Arcadiy Ivanov wrote:
I will definitely take a look, thanks!
BTW: You should take a look at those new extensions points which might
also be a possibility to change that behaviour......I'm not sure...
May be Jason can tell you something about it...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
The point I was trying to make is that I'd like to see that change in
the Maven Core, i.e. adding features that can be used by all repository
connector implementers if they so choose.
Given the artifact-centric nature of Maven, repository encapsulation in
an artifact seems to me like a natural choice.
On 2015-03-21 09:19, Jeff MAURY wrote:
You should look at news brought by latest 3.3 from Maven that target
extensibility but to my knowledge, extending the format of the POM is not
yet supported (see
http://blog.soebes.de/blog/2015/03/17/apache-maven-3-dot-3-1-features/)
Regards
Jeff
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Arcadiy Ivanov <[email protected]>
wrote:
So Maven pom is set in stone and no changes can be introduced to it?
I'm writing this specifically to guage the community interest before
starting the work. I.e. my intention is to have a general consensus
that 1)
it's a good thing to add 2) it's the right way to go about it.
Generally speaking, adding optional tags does not break forward
functionality, i.e. it's relatively safe.
What would be the fundamental reason for never ever ever considering any
additions to the POM ever again?
On 2015-03-21 04:11, Jeff MAURY wrote:
then your stuff will not be Maven compatible. You will face non
adoption
from the community
Jeff
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Arcadiy Ivanov <[email protected]>
wrote:
Presumably, by editing maven-model/src/main/mdo/maven.mdo ? :)
On 2015-03-21 03:31, Jeff MAURY wrote:
how will you extend the repository element in maven ?
Jeff
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Arcadiy Ivanov <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi folks,
I'd like to feel your temperature wrt the following improvement I
would
like to make to Maven before I start working on it.
*== Artifact-based Reposi**tories* ==
In Tycho we have these constructs:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Tycho/Reference_Card#
Repository_providing_the_
context_of_the_build
<repository>
<id>eclipse-indigo</id>
<layout>p2</layout>
<url>http://download.eclipse.org/releases/indigo</url>
</repository>
P2 repositories can be encapsulated in an archive. An archive,
naturally,
can be available as an artifact in some repo somewhere (including
the
local
one).
What would you think about adding something like:
<repository>
<id>eclipse-indigo</id>
<layout>p2</layout>
<groupId>foo</artifactId>
<artifactId>bar</artifactId>
<version>1.2.3-SNAPSHOT</version>
<type>tgz</type>
<required>true</required>
</repository>
The broad strokes are as follows:
* Repo artifact becomes a dependency of an artifact being
built on
the
same terms as its parent would be, i.e. if you can't find
parent
you
can't build same with repo artifact (by default)
* If repo <required> (or <optional> to reverse the semantics) is
false
(true), failure to resolve the repository does not lead to a
critical failure and reactor proceeeds as if the repository
declaration did not occur.
* Repo artifact is attempted to be resolved using all of the
repositories inherited from parents, ad infinitum, or in the
repository declarations prior to the one being considered.
Artifact
is, otherwise, resolved by standard means.
Let me know what you think,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
