I tend to agree, they should not really be used. It seems like these
third-party repositories have a strong potential for causing network
errors (in cases where the repo is down or on a private network), and
they definitely push the user in the direction of trusting anything that
comes from anywhere on the internet without thinking twice...not a great
idea, and an understandably unpopular one with companies.
I think the role of the <repository> declaration in the POM should be
shifted in Maven 3. I think this along the same lines that Brett was
talking, but I'd really like to see them take on an advisory role rather
than actively participate in resolution. In other words, if an artifact
cannot be found, then display the list of third-party repositories which
MIGHT contain the artifact, along with the POM that lists that repository.
This would help users request new repositories be added to the repo
manager in cases where there is one, and otherwise get permission to add
the repo to their settings.xml. In short, Maven would tell the user the
most likely reason the build cannot proceed, but not assume it's okey to
pursue the artifact to the ends of the earth.
-john
Paul Gier wrote:
I really think it should not be allowed, since it makes the builds less
predictable/reproduceable/secure. Most people I've talked to think it's
a bug when they first see it happening because they are trying to figure
out why Maven is downloading files from a random location on the Internet.
The people who have a corporate policy to only download from central are
already breaking their policy whether they list the alternate repo in
settings.xml or it is added from a dependency.
With that said, I'm ok with having it configurable as Jesse suggests as
long as the default behaviour is to not add the repositories to the build.
Jesse McConnell wrote:
judging from the response I have gotten from people both wanting and
not wanting repositories declared for various integrations with jetty,
the problem folks seem to be ones where their corporate policy dictate
they can not use any repo other then central but they do not have a
repo manager setup.
since we can't rightly force people to install and maintain repository
managers, at first blush I would probably error on the side of a
option in the settings.xml a la offline
<transitiveRepositories>true/false</transtiveRepositories>
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:03, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
I would advocate not allowing them, but using them to provide useful
information in the case of a resolution exception that can easily
guide the
user on what to do.
If folks strongly want to continue to allow it, I would go with a
prominent
warning (which is the case for several other things now).
As to what the user is guided to do - I assume that is to declare
them as
repositories in the current project, or to refer to their repository
manager's documentation to add it there (with this being
recommended). In
the long run I'd hope Maven can better handle multiple repositories
OOTB (in
a way that still complements the use of a repository manager) -
actually I
remember briefly talking to Brian about that at last year's ApacheCon
Maven
BOF :) Time flies...
- Brett
On 28/10/2009, at 10:52 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Hi,
following a comment by Wendy on JIRA, I wanted to re-check what our
plans
are for repositories in dependency POMs. In more detail, how is
dependency
resolution in Maven 3.x expected to work here:
project ---depends-on---> A ---depends-on---> B
where the POM of A declares the repository R hosting B.
Now, when it comes to resolve B's POM/JAR (and its transitive
dependencies) in the context of building the project, should Maven 3
also
consider R (like currently done in Maven 2) or only those
repositories that
are available for the root of the dependency graph, i.e. the
repositories
declared in the POM of the project and the settings?
Besides the question of the degree of backward-compat we want to
keep, the
issue with ignoring the repositories declared in dependency POMs I
see is
the effect on open source projects and their consumers. If one project
consumes the artifacts of another, do we want the first project to
redeclare
all repositories required to resolve the transitive dependencies of the
second project? Some arguments for the other side can be found in [1].
So, where do we want to go with this?
Benjamin
[0]
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4413?focusedCommentId=196344&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_196344
[1] http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3056
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
