On 3/22/07, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If ivy can use poms, I don't think it would be useful. OK, poms are more limited than ivy files, but if they are good enough for maven users, they should be good enough for ivy users of a public repository.
I'm not sure they are good enough for maven users in all cases. I often heard maven users complain about needing to exclude many dependencies, or include may others by hand, especially because maven poms do not have something as flexible as configurations and configuration mapping. The problem when you want to introduce more precise metadata using ivy files
(dedicated configurations, dedicated artefact types, etc.) is that everyone will have a different view of what should defined.
Yes, this is the main problem. But as you know metadata on ibiblio sometimes change, or don't change even if there are clear errors, so you can really safely rely on ibiblio. But it's so easy to start with an existing and public repository that I understand the value of ibiblio. So IMO hosting ivy files on ibiblio could be interesting for Ivy users if there is a community strong enough to maintain it and ensure a good level of quality. And that's the main problem IMO, because we (the Ivy community) are still far from being able to provide this effort, and if we provide only poor quality Ivy files, I don't see the value of hosting them on ibiblio. The quality of the dependencies metadata is relative to its users. Yes, it's very difficult to produce metadata of good quality for all kind of usages. As it's difficult to produce a good API. An ivy repository is excellent for an internal repository, where you know
all the users. But I think that the level of details expressed in the poms is more adapted for a public repository.
When you work on open source projects, the difference between internal and public is not always clear. So at least for open source projects using Ivy themselves I think providing public Ivy files on a public repo would be a good thing. But I also think this could be done in distributed repositories instead of a central one. - Xavier Gilles
> -----Original Message----- > From: easyproglife [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: mercredi 21 mars 2007 17:51 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Ivyrep > > Let me suggest another idea: > > Can ibiblio staff be asked to support ivy as well for existing projects? > The > result would be an ivy.xml file and pom file together side by side. > > This can solve the problem of not quality enough pom files from ivy's > point > of view. Maven and Ivy metadata files would simply sit side by side and > everyone would be able to use ibiblio repositories. > > There is still namespace issue (e.g. commons-collections/commons- > collections > vs. apache/common-collections) but maybe some symbolic links could solve > the > problem (again, ibiblio staff may help). > > > > On 3/20/07, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 3/19/07, Scott Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Xavier, > > > > > > Your logic does make sense to me and I realize that this is not an > > easy > > > decision, as you pointed out in a later e-mail. > > > > > > My solution currently is to use IvyRep as the first repository and > > > Ibiblio as the second in a repository chain. This allows me to get > > > ivy.xml files whenever they're available. Though, I wasn't aware of > the > > > IvyRep Sandbox, so that may be another repository that i would throw > in > > the > > > chain. > > > > > > I realize that this is a complicated setup, but maybe something like > > > this makes sense as the default? > > > > > > I don't think so, because the sandbox is really just a sandbox, and I > > don't > > recommend using it directly. Well, I do not recommend using ibiblio > repo > > in > > an enterprise build system either, but I think we need to go toward a > > better > > unification of metadata with maven2. I think we need to face it, > creating > > metadata for all Java libraries is a huge task, so why not reuse the > work > > done by maven aficionados, and only write metadata with Ivy files when > > maven > > poms are not flexible enough. > > But this is only my point of view of the moment, any input from the > > community is welcome. > > > > My thought here is that if you have the Ivy defaults set to use > Ibiblio > > > exclusively, you run the risk of the Ivy community not having enough > > reason > > > to grow IvyRep or change Ibiblio to contain ivy.xml files. This would > > > make Ibiblio and pom the long term solution, which doesn't seem > > appropriate. > > > > > > If there is no reason to write an ivy file, why write it? I prefer > reusing > > existing metadata when it's good enough, and write only those which are > > necessary. But once again, this will only change the default way of > using > > Ivy, and I think improve out of the box user experience thanks to the > huge > > set of existing metadata in maven 2 repo. > > > > Regarding your notion of distributed repositories, I can see that > > > working. The only concern is that every time you add a dependency, > you > > most > > > likely have to add another include in your ivyconf. This is a little > > more > > > work than just having one central repository. Though, the idea of > every > > > project owning their own repository sounds much more robust and > > "cleaner" > > > than one central repository containing every module in existence. > > > > > > The idea would be to provide an online ivy settings file pointing to the > > distributed ivysettings, so that you don't even have to modify your > > settings, you just include the online one if you want. > > > > - Xavier > > > > Scott > > > > > > > >
