I think it is a common and good practice. Specifically if you take advantage of using a good structure in terms of the use GAV coordinates and release versioning. And also with regards to potentially restricting access based on that..
manfred Eric B wrote on 2017-11-26 11:36: > I have a need to store some binary objects (ex: zip files) in a central > repository that can be easily accessed by a build or deployment system. > Both Chef and/or Docker need access to these binary objects in order to > build out the environment needed for my application. > > The binary objects are not code or libraries. They are purely a zip file > of static resources (ex: gifs or help documentation/templates/etc, GeoIP > database, etc). I need them somewhere centrally accessible so that my > deployment system can easily retrieve them and explode them in the > container/environment to make accessible to my application. > > At the moment, they are being hosted in a "raw" Nexus repo. But the > problem with a raw repo is that there is no classification of > artifacts/versioning/etc. So I am considering giving them all a GAV id and > putting it in the Maven repo as a maven artifact. > > But is this poor practice? I've always considered Maven artifacts as > "code-related" - that is artifacts that are the output of some code > development. Could be compiled sources, javadocs, generated artifacts, > etc. But putting in these static binaries just seems "wrong". However, I > don't really see a good alternative. > > I realize that this "can" be done. I guess my question is rather "should" > it be done? How is everyone else handling these types of resources? > > Thanks, > > Eric > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
