ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xavier Hanin" <>
Subject Re: Ivy RoundUp Repository - feedback requested
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:10:03 GMT
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Brown, Carlton <> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: []
> > On Behalf Of Archie Cobbs
> > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:31 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Ivy RoundUp Repository - feedback requested
> >
> > When I started implementing this resolver, I tried to think
> > about "building"
> > as broadly as possible. Then later, for security reasons (and
> > because get/unzip/etc. is all that's really needed), it
> > seemed better to limit what the "build" process can do to
> > simply extracting files and/or repackaging them. So really
> > now it perhaps should be called the "extractor" resolver or something.
> IMO, I would go as far as tackling the extraction problem, but not
> farther than that.  Ivy is very configurable from Ant, which can handle
> all your build needs.
> I could see maybe adding an aggregate attribute to the existing
> resolvers, like so.
> <url name="foo-zips">
>        <archive type="tar" compression="gz"
> pattern="${url}/[organisation]/[module].tar.gz"/>
>        <artifact pattern="[organisation]/[module]/[artifact].[ext]"/>
>        <ivy pattern="[organisation]/[module]/ivy.xml"/>
> </url>
> Thus the caller would never need to know that the artifacts came from a
> ..tar.gz.  I think that is a good idea.  However, I'm not sure it's a
> good idea to introduce other concerns around building.  One reason I
> prefer Ivy+Ant to Maven is that I don't have to clutter my dependency
> descriptor with a bunch of goop for source-mapping and build logic, and
> I would hope that any public repository would preserve and respect that
> principle.

It depends how you consider the roundup repository. I think its intent is to
be a kind of meta repository: it contains metadata helping to build an
actual repository. Maybe what's confusing is that archie suggest to use it
as a repository directly. IMO this is required only until we can get enough
support to have a good hosting for the actual repository. Then both the meta
repository and the actual repository would make sense: the meta repository
is helpful for people who want to create their own repository, and easier to
update than a repository made by hand. But it isn't used directly from Ivy.
The actual repository is the only thing that is used by mere users.

In that case I'm not sure it wouldn't make sense to allow actual compilation
of modules from the metadata provided by the meta repository. Not sure it
should be part of the resolver though, and this can come later IMO.


> -----------------------------------------
> ====================================================
> This message contains PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL
> information that is intended only for use by the
> named recipient. If you are not the named recipient,
> any disclosure, dissemination, or action based on
> the contents of this message is prohibited. In such
> case please notify us and destroy and delete all
> copies of this transmission.  Thank you.
> ====================================================

Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message