ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <>
Subject Re: maven dependence tasks for ant
Date Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:32:32 GMT
Stephane Bailliez wrote:
> Steve Loughran wrote:
>> for what it is worth, my second impl of JAR download/run does pull 
>> down, validate and then execute JAR files, for a fully dynamic 
>> launcher thingy; like java web start only with better JAR sharing 
>> across applications. And an alternate transport to HTTP may be some 
>> lan-based multicast thingy, which is good for fault tolerant sharing 
>> of stuff over the network; if one machine in the cluster has the JAR 
>> files, it can pass them to the rest without any need for a 
>> conventional shared filesystem. I suppose I could handle transitive 
>> dependencies there, too. Though it scares me. The reason is a bit 
>> related to why I dont like dependency declarations in JAR manifests 
>> -how do I know the publisher of a JAR understands my deployment well 
>> enough to make anything other than a hint as to the dependency logic.
> Good point, so I suppose it must be an option.
> Note: It would be nice if there could be some sort of cooperation with 
> Ivy, Brett and you about theses repo/snapshot/dependencies... mailing list.

> Your point about dependencies is very interesting as I had the 
> unfortunate chance to test Gentoo logic about this dependency problem.

the problem w/ all linux distros, wonderful that apt-get is in 
particular, is that they assume that artifacts are global and that you 
must be internally consistent on a system. Java deployments only need to 
be consistent on a per-classloader-inheritance-path basis; you can be 
inconsistent in a single process, if you need to be.

> The rational is that they want to recompile just about everything for 
> deployment...without having any knowledge of the intricacies of the 
> project, I have had a few surprises with some ebuild packages where the 
> packager simply assumed a bit too much and I have read other 
> complaining, and it looks like they are quick to accept ebuild that are 
> quickly made...
> Gentoo also publish Ant as the sources...and recompile everything 
> without having all the needed libs..which gives somewhat of a 'half Ant' 
> version.

fetch.xml will pull down all the libraries ; we need to include it in 
the end user distro but only after I've updated it with forthcoming changes.

 > This scares me a lot about bug reports.

We could add something to the manifest to say 'official ant build' (via 
a property you have to add in Then in the fancy new 
logic for handling manifestation failures, we could probe for info about 
who built the build. If it wasnt the ant team, we point this out, 
identifying who to bother.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message