Thanks for the suggestions/confirmations. Not a bad idea to create a basic pom with the build-helper plugin; it'll allow me at the very least to add a little documentation as to what the artifact is.
Eric On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Todd <[email protected]> wrote: > In order to keep track of what you've uploaded and allow consistent uploads > of new versions, I recommend that you create a POM file for each binary > artifact and define an execution of the > http://www.mojohaus.org/build-helper-maven-plugin/ attach-artifact goal to > perform the upload. > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Manfred Moser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
