How has the process changed since the move to Maven?  Do we scan the 
entire maven repository?  I would guess not....but maybe we do. 

In any case these restrictions are frustrating - it seems that it would 
be beneficial to remove any artificial naming restrictions - my gut says 
*.jar would suffice.

What effect would that have?

Juris Galang wrote:
> I could change our config module loader to handle the prefixed word 
> SNAPSHOT...
> Do we want to go with this?
>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Taylor Gautier wrote:
>
>> Are we fixing that problem asap?
>>
>> At the moment, as I understand it, you are violating the naming 
>> conventions (and thus the artifact resolution mechanism) that maven 
>> uses because in two different repositories you have artifacts that 
>> are different, but have the exact same name.  This could lead to a 
>> lot of trouble...
>>
>> Jason Voegele wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 11:20, Eric Redmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> Traditionally people seperate snapshot and public for various reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Snapshots want to be kept private (unnecessary, since the 
>>>> webserver can
>>>> be configured to grant/deny access to certain files to certain users)
>>>> 2) Repos are managed by a different team (development team versus 
>>>> build
>>>> management team, this is probably the only decent reason I know of)
>>>> 3) Snapshot repos can grow fast so sometimes require servers with more
>>>> diskspace (bad filesystem setup, imo, and shouldn't be a reason)
>>>> 4) Snapshot repos need managed more - for example, deleting old 
>>>> datestamped
>>>> snapshots (not a great reason, since a script can do the same job on a
>>>> joint repo)
>>>>
>>>> I mirror Taylor's sentiments: "I am personally against it unless 
>>>> there is a
>>>> good reason *for* it".
>>>>
>>> The reason we have to have a separate snapshots repo (for right now) 
>>> is that
>>> currently our config modules JAR files have to follow a specific naming
>>> convention and cannot have the -SNAPSHOT postfix on the version.  If 
>>> or when
>>> we fix our config modules loader to be more flexible in regard to 
>>> naming,
>>> then we could probably do away with the separate snapshots repo.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tc-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
>
_______________________________________________
tc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev

Reply via email to