> We have got an interesting comment in
> http://www.fornax-platform.org/tracker/browse/CSC-173 CSC-173 that
> it is
> not a good idea to have the repository definition in the pom files.
[Thorsten Kamann]
I have take a look at the old postings.
I think it were the best solution to add the Java.net Repository to the
Fornax-Repository Proxy.
>
> Another opinion:
> http://www.nabble.com/-fornax-repository--missing-equinox-
> dependency-to14252094s17564.html#a14278216
>
> Does the definition in the pom takes precedence over definition in
> settings.xml?
>
> I started this thread to gather more opinions. What do you think?
[Thorsten Kamann]
The definition of repos into the pom is a nice and quick solution for the
user want to trying out a library or tool. If you do your daily work the
better way is to define the repos in a parent pom or in the settings.
The settings have the disadvantage that you must use profiles and every mvn
call must activate the needed profiles. If you work with different projects
you can't activate every profile.
Another way is to setup up a local Maven-Proxy (archiva, maven-proxy,...).
So every user of this proxy must only know anything about the proxy.
Personally I am using both configurations. The settings for the fornax,
daily work stuff and the parent pom definition for my "private" projects.
For me its unusable to start a local proxy instance.
Thorsten
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Fornax-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer
