That would explain it; if it is checking that the modules build.xml
file is newer than the Eclipse project files then only the common
module would have prompted such a regeneration because its the only
module level build.xml file that got updated by the Ivy related
changes(that I can recall).

On 13 May 2012 16:05, Weston M. Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> My bad, it appears there is a flag in common.xml that controls whether or not 
> to update the files. Not sure why it worked for common and not for client, 
> but flipping that flag and running the task again produced the correct 
> results.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
> On May 13, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Weston M. Price wrote:
>
>> One thing I did notice, once this change went in, a few of the java 
>> projects, client especially, don't seem to see the updated dependency 
>> location in the Eclipse .classpath files. The common project seems ok, but 
>> client does not.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Weston
>> On May 7, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Weston M. Price wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 7, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have had a further play, and updated the build to pull down ivy and
>>>> the dependencies automatically, with support for selecting between
>>>> using a maven2 repo (defaulting to central, url configurable) or a
>>>> flat directory of jars on the filesystem (defaulted to
>>>> qpid/java/localfs_repo but is configurable). It defaults to the maven
>>>> repo unless overriden with -Divy.default.resolver=localfs in which
>>>> case it wont touch the maven repo.
>>>>
>>>> Initial attempt available for preview at:
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/dep_removal/
>>>>
>>>> I have some further tweaks to make around cache dirs and retrieval of
>>>> optional dependencies, but whats there now is basically ready to go so
>>>> check it out. I plan to put it on trunk tomorrow.
>>>>
>>> Excellent stuff. Thanks Robbie.
>>>
>>> Weston
>>>
>>>> Robbie
>>>>
>>>> On 3 May 2012 15:42, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 3 May 2012 15:35, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 May 2012 16:20, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I took a tiny little look at using Ivy for dependencies last night in
>>>>>>> order to allow removing dependencies in the Java tree from the repo. I
>>>>>>> have thought we should do this for a long time, and I'm sure most of
>>>>>>> the people who come across our source think the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having Ivy just download the dependencies (whilst being driven by Ant)
>>>>>>> and then using our existing Ant build otherwise unchanged is very
>>>>>>> easy, so I think that even if we don't spend any time improving
>>>>>>> anything else we should at least do that for the jars it is easily
>>>>>>> possible to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to propose that we make this improvement, and wondered
>>>>>>> what others think? If noone objects I would like to make it happen
>>>>>>> sometime next week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm very much in favour of removing the need to keep copies of the
>>>>>> jars in our subversion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of quick questions...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> will we be adding a way to get ivy to only check a local directory for
>>>>>> the required Jars?  I believe this is possible, and by doing so we
>>>>>> should be alleviate any concerns that people might have about
>>>>>> downloading dependencies from the internet (in this way people could
>>>>>> maintain their local directory - possibly checked in to their own
>>>>>> subversion), and point the build at this when they wish to assemble
>>>>>> their builds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe so, yes. We can add an ivysettings.xml file to allow
>>>>> overriding the default search locations and enable specifying
>>>>> alternative sources, e.g. a corporations internal repository mirrors
>>>>> or a local file based repository.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, and somewhat related - is there an easy way (my brief reading
>>>>>> of ivy documentation made me think there was) of specifying the
>>>>>> dependencies such that transitive dependencies are not automatically
>>>>>> resolved? I'm not sure if we wish to configure that by default, but
>>>>>> that would be the closest to what we have now.
>>>>>
>>>>> From my reading last night I believe I remember seeing an option to do
>>>>> that, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll be really glad to remove the need to have all the jars checked in
>>>>>> to every branch if we can assure ourselves that we can get the same
>>>>>> level of control of which Jars are included in the build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a test of this, I made a quick change (snippet below) to our
>>>>>>> existing ivy.xml file (currently used for deploying maven artifacts
>>>>>>> for our releases, in concert with the upload.xml build file) that
>>>>>>> would have it grab a couple of our existing dependencies (jars only,
>>>>>>> and excluding a sub dependency we already have a different version of)
>>>>>>> using some new targets in the build.xml file which I ripped almost
>>>>>>> entirely from the existing upload.xml stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -  <dependencies/>
>>>>>>> +  <dependencies>
>>>>>>> +    <dependency org="commons-lang" name="commons-lang" rev="2.2">
>>>>>>> +      <include type="jar"/>
>>>>>>> +    </dependency>
>>>>>>> +    <dependency org="commons-cli" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0">
>>>>>>> +      <include type="jar"/>
>>>>>>> +      <exclude name="commons-logging"/>
>>>>>>> +    </dependency>
>>>>>>> +  </dependencies>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This allowed me to remove those 2 dependency jars from the lib dir,
>>>>>>> and made the process of gathering the dependencies and running the
>>>>>>> build as follows:
>>>>>>> 1. Run 'ant download-ivy' (necessary if you don’t have Ivy installed
>>>>>>> in one of Ant's supported lib areas already).
>>>>>>> 2. Run 'ant resolve' and find that the jars are eventually present in
>>>>>>> the lib dir again.
>>>>>>> 3. Run whichever build command you would normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (combining all 3 into 'ant download-ivy resolve <normal commands>'
>>>>>>> would also work, but steps 1 and 2 could just be transparently
>>>>>>> incorporated into the standard build sequence if desired).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to