Return-Path: 
 <ivy-user-return-6533-apmail-ant-ivy-user-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-ivy-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 47194 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2010 07:14:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 10 Mar 2010 07:14:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 30372 invoked by uid 500); 10 Mar 2010 07:13:39 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-ivy-user-archive@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 30217 invoked by uid 500); 10 Mar 2010 07:13:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ivy-user-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ivy-user-help@ant.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ivy-user-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ivy-user@ant.apache.org>
List-Id: <ivy-user.ant.apache.org>
Reply-To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 30209 invoked by uid 99); 10 Mar 2010 07:13:38 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:13:38 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of anders.jacobsson@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.215 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.220.215] (HELO mail-fx0-f215.google.com)
 (209.85.220.215)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:13:30 +0000
Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so296013fxm.6
        for <ivy-user@ant.apache.org>; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:13:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=Q10ZJs3b99j8oOH+7XeE4HxiruMvokc1JelsQ5GLB1c=;
        b=DdWXr4eI9PWye/5Edu6kY0umv3ex1l2JTBPRGzEXoohB7i8sMp23ovrNKj8n8iJPs1
         X94blfmun7jb3i9iAsSiO3GA3u1M5TEcK3x3uTMPash0PN26Vg1L6IWeb9t1w/RohuGK
         pZVKNjY44wi5VkTO7L/QBSgn+1KLrLJ9Vq4RA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=wn7dbMsaJlTdkzquMn4wKjXWMZr3ma8vXB4ywBL4bWaBVitQtuZHf29J4sl0yzYl4/
         SNkWr0JKLwc9ITPL41DBhO1dOCISIxTLCpLCg/WAK3BKcFxd/c99GVOvqzzc7oBRmiVM
         E5l4SraoHuL5tnxm4hqR5M96uUHx3xHp+rGZY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.102.207.1 with SMTP id e1mr625596mug.100.1268205190521; Tue,
	09 Mar 2010 23:13:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <f569752c1003090759i63b6529fj96961732d4df56ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <001485f04014b18fe504815e20c1@google.com>
	 <f569752c1003090759i63b6529fj96961732d4df56ba@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:13:10 +0100
Message-ID: <146055d01003092313q7c0aa5adj24f9e1e58dfa662@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Customized revision scheme
From: Anders Jacobsson <anders.jacobsson@gmail.com>
To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364c79cfe2246604816d0737
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--0016364c79cfe2246604816d0737
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi!

Sure, here is what I have tried to do:

I have implemented my own last strategy that looks the same as
LatestRevisionStrategy except that the MridComparator compares two
R-releases to determine which one is the latest. The strategy is plugged in
as follows:

  <typedef name="latest-product-revision"
classname="com.bla.bla.build_utils.ivy.LatestProductRevisionStrategy"/>
  <latest-strategies>
    <latest-product-revision name="latest-product-revision"/>
    <latest-revision name="latest-revision"/>
  </latest-strategies>

The above is used by my conflict managers:

  <conflict-managers>
    <latest-cm name="latest-conflict-manager" latest="latest-revision"/>
    <latest-cm name="latest-product-revision-conflict-manager"
latest="latest-product-revision"/>
  </conflict-managers>

However, I do not believe that the conflict managers are actually used as
there are no revision conflicts.

The resolvers are also using the latest strategies:

  <resolvers>
    <url name="bla-release" latest="latest-product-revision">
        <ivy pattern="http://
${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-releases-local/[organization]/[module]/[revision]/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
        <artifact pattern="http://
${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-releases-local/[organization]/[module]/[revision]/[artifact]-[revision]-[type].[ext]"/>
    </url>
    <url name="bla-latest-integration" checkmodified="true"
latest="latest-product-revision">
        <ivy pattern="http://
${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-snapshots-local/[organization]/[module]/[revision]/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
        <artifact pattern="http://
${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-snapshots-local/[organization]/[module]/[revision]/[artifact]-[revision]-[type].[ext]"/>
    </url>
    <url name="bla-release-publish" latest="latest-product-revision">
        <ivy pattern="http://
${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-releases-local/[organization]/[module]/[revision]/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
        <artifact pattern="http://
${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-releases-local/[organization]/[module]/[revision]/[artifact]-[revision]-[type].[ext]"/>
    </url>
    <url name="bla-latest-integration-publish"
latest="latest-product-revision">
        <ivy pattern="http://
${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-snapshots-local/[organization]/[module]/[revision]/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
        <artifact pattern="http://
${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-snapshots-local/[organization]/[module]/[revision]/[artifact]-[revision]-[type].[ext]"/>
    </url>
    <ibiblio name="libs-releases" m2compatible="true"
root="http://${repository.host}:${repository.port}/${repository.baseUrl}/libs-releases"
latest="latest-revision"/>
  </resolvers>

I am using Artifactory as a repository server. libs-releases is used for
third party libraries while libs-releases-local and libs-snapshots-local are
used for our internal releases and snapshots.

The modules look like:

  <modules>
    <module organisation="com.bla.bla.*" revision="latest.integration"
resolver="bla-latest-integration"
conflict-manager="latest-product-revision-conflict-manager"/>
    <module organisation="com.bla.bla.*" resolver="bla-release"
conflict-manager="latest-product-revision-conflict-manager"/>
    <module resolver="libs-releases"
conflict-manager="latest-conflict-manager"/>
  </modules>

I have also tried to implement my own version matcher but if I have
understood it correctly, that would only be necessary if I would like to do
things like R1A+, R[1,2]A. Correct? Also, I was hoping that the
out-of-the-box version matchers (i.e. ExactVersionMatcher and
LatestVersionMatcher) would suffice when it comes to exact matching and
latest.* matching. But I have to admit that I have not really grasped how
version matchers come into play.

And finally, I made my own implementation of the buildnumber ant task for
two reasons. One, I wanted to add zero padding to the build number and two,
the default implementation is hardcoded to use latest-revision as latest
strategy.

But regardless of the above, it seems like Ivy is unable to resolve the
following dependency

      <dependency org="com.bla.bla.scf" name="a2" rev="latest.integration"
conf="runtime->api"/>

although a snapshot of a2 is available (e.g. R1A-SNAPSHOT (it works
perfectly when the revision is 1.0-SNAPSHOT)). The infos (array of
ArtifactInfo) passed to the sort method of my latest strategy implementation
does not contain anything. Perhaps I need to implement my own resolver?

Sorry for the long mail.

Cheers,
Anders


On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Mandie Smith <mandie@houseofgnomes.net>wrote:

> Could you post an example of what you've done?
>
> Mandie
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:26 AM, <anders.jacobsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > My company is using a different revision scheme that I would like to
> > configure Ivy to honor. The format is as follows:
> >
> > R[major][minor][build (optional)] where major denotes new functionality,
> > minor corrections and build is an internal sequence
> >
> > Example: R1A01 (which would correspond to 1.0-1 or something)
> >
> > Not sure if it has any impact but I still want to be able to use
> > 'latest.integration' etc (or use some other name if that is necessary)
> for
> > snapshot builds, eg R1A-SNAPSHOT.
> >
> > Is it all possible to do this? I have tried to implement my own latest
> > strategy and version matcher but either it is not possible or I am not
> > understanding how Ivy works.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Anders
> >
>

--0016364c79cfe2246604816d0737--