On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:13:16 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mean, instead of: > > <dependency> > <id/> > <groupId/> > <artifactId/> > <version/> > <jar/> > <type/> > <url/> > <properties> > </properties> > </dependency> > > Why not something like: > > <dependency> > <id/> > <groupId/> > <artifactId/> > <version/> > <jar/> > <type/> > <url/> > <repository type="" url=""/> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > <properties> > </properties> > </dependency>
Ah, I see. Yes, as it happens, both the ant task that Steve is working on and the external ant task I wrote <http://www.httpunit.org/doc/dependencies.html> permit the specification of a URL on a repository type, although the syntax is a bit simpler than maven's. AFAIK maven does support this, using a system property to specify the available repository URL(s). > This is controversial, but it may be, and sun shows this in a similar > way with the click-through license stuff, that some would not want to > have their repo be part of a central DNS, and some users, especially in > corporate environments, want to be able to direct users to different > repos for different artifacts. Which probably means safeguards on what is included in any public repository. I note that some common Sun jars used to be in the ibiblio repository and have been removed, presumably at Sun's behest. Possibly each repository needs to have a licensing policy, only permitting the inclusion of those with a particular class of license. Some licenses, such as the Apache license and MIT license could be used just about anywhere. IBM's is more restrictive, and might be a reason to exclude jars using it. The same is true for GPL and LGPL, all of which place some restrictions on the companies using the artifacts. I am considering recommending to my employer that we set up our own repository, so that the legal folks can control which open-source projects we use.