It's a fair question -- if you want people to be able to sync dependencies from Maven directly into their projects via pom.xml references, then the Maven repository is the way to go.
If you want to distribute a single package that contains everything (binaries, docs, samples, etc) needed to get started with OpenJPA and doesn't require the user to use the Maven project model, then the source / binary zip archives are the way to go. Personally, I think both are valuable as they serve different needs for different development environments. Eddie On 4/24/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote: > Hmm. I wonder if we're really using Maven repositories correctly. > Do we > need our dist to be in Maven at all? We don't need to. It was just easy to set up that way. > I do think that we should have something that's easy to depend on that > pulls in the openjpa-persistence-jdbc module, without making people > have > to know about that level of modularity detail. Why can't they just depend on openjpa-all? That brings everything in... > -Patrick > > -- > Patrick Linskey > BEA Systems, Inc. > ______________________________________________________________________ > _ > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > contain > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and > affiliated > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted > and/or > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > individual > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended > recipient, > and have received this message in error, please immediately return > this > by email and then delete it. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:05 PM >> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Artifact names >> >> >> +1 -- I'd prefer to have the binary / source uber-archives >> outside of the Maven repro, though that's more due to >> convention than anything else. >> >> I agree that it's not worth worrying about this for 0.9.7. >> >> Cheers, >> Eddie >> >> >> On 4/24/07, Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm finally getting back to this thread, sorry for the delay. >>> >>> I got a similar answer from the maven mailing list. Their stance is >>> that the maven repository is for artifacts which are used by maven, >>> which wouldn't be the same as a final destination for our >> distribution. >>> >>> I'm in favor of moving the source and binary archives to a >> different >>> location, if there's a good spot available to us. Does >> anyone object >>> to putting the releases somewhere outside of a maven repository? >>> >>> I don't think this is urgent for the 0.9.7 release since we >> can't get >>> rid of the ugly -project names now, but it might be nice to have a >>> solution for when OpenJPA graduates. >>> >>> On 4/12/07, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> In Geronimo, we publish to the maven repo as maven likes, >> but when >>>> we publish to the apache distribution mirrors (for website >>>> downloads), we name the files as we like. >>>> >>>> -dain >>>> >>>> On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Michael Dick wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm hitting a bit of a snag with the staging repository for >>>>> release 0.9.7. >>>>> Recently we made changes to remove -project from our >> the zip file >>>>> names. The problem is that the maven install and deploy goals >>>>> ignore the names we provide and generate their own names ( >>>>> openjpa-project-0.9.7-incubating-xxx.zip). >>>>> >>>>> I searched through the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list >>>>> archives and it turns out this is a fairly common problem - >>>>> usually resulting in a response of "working as >> designed". Here's >>>>> an example >>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Installation-and-deployment- >>>>> tf1449780s177.html#a3916784 >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone vehemently object to putting -project back into the >>>>> names for the 0.9.7 release? >>>>> >>>>> The only other way I know of to fix the names that get deployed >>>>> would be to change the artifactId in the pom files (basically >>>>> switch openjpa with openjpa-project). Switching the names will >>>>> impact anyone who has a dependency on the base openjpa project. >>>>> They'll have to update the version number anyway, but it will >>>>> still be a little confusing if they used to depend on >>>>> openjpa-0.9.6 and now they depend on openjpa-project-0.9.7. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Michael Dick >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Michael Dick >>> >> > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries > and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you > are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in > error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
