geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sachin Patel <sppat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: progress on mavenizing eclipse plugins
Date Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:48:47 GMT
Yes, pretty sure.  The layout of the m1 vs m2 repositories is 
different.  In m1 you would have

${m1-repo}/group/artifact-1.0.jar
${m1-repo}/group/artifact-2.0.jar

The poms would be under ${m1-repo}/group/poms/

Where in 2.0 it installs them as ...

${m1-repo}/group/artifact/1.0/artifact-1.0.jar
${m1-repo}/group/artifact/2.0/artifact-2.0.jar

And it installs the pom in the individual folder containing each jar.

David Jencks wrote:
> well, I disagree....
>
> I think an appropriate strategy is to get the build working with m2,  
> including writing the maven plugin you will need, and then call that  
> maven plugin from m1 to create an m1 build.  If we are really lucky 
> the  geronimo m2 build will be far enough along by the time sachin 
> gets the  m2 maven plugin working properly that he won't have to deal 
> with m1:-)   I also think an example of using m2 in our very own build 
> may help to  encourage us all to pitch in on the geronimo m2 build.
>
>
> btw are you sure about the location of the eclipse jars in the m2  
> repository?  I haven't used m2 at all but I wonder if the attempt to  
> download the pom is due to it being in the wrong place.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Aug 29, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> I think simpler is better and more consumable.  +1 to Stay with Maven 1
>>
>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I totally agree that downloading 2 build tools for end users is 
>>>> bad.   However, for this particular case I don't think doing this 
>>>> is AS  bad.   From a users standpoint, there going to just download 
>>>> the  built image from the site and install it onto eclipse.  From 
>>>> a  developers standpoint, regardless of wether this is built using 
>>>> M1  or M2, most eclipse end users are most likely not going to 
>>>> build  with either of them, and they will just do what is familiar 
>>>> for them  and import the projects into an Eclipse IDE and build 
>>>> from within  there.
>>>> If you still feel strongly against it, I don't mind going back to M1.
>>>
>>>
>>> I definately don't want to be the party pooper here ;-)  But I 
>>> think  we need to stay the course of consistency.  Lets get some 
>>> feedback of  others and then we can come to some concensus on this 
>>> issue.  I do  feel strongly about this, but its the decision of the 
>>> team, so lets  get some more feedback.  This will be a real PITA if 
>>> we need to do  this with 2 build tools.  Also, I am fine if you want 
>>> to do it in  both M1 and M2, so this would suffice.  But I really 
>>> think you need  to support M1 right now.
>>>
>>> Again, if we can get a roll out schedule with getting Geronimo  
>>> converted, then I would be ok with M2.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So after sitting down yesterday and doing a little reading... I 

>>>>>> have a much better understanding of Maven. :) I've decided to go
 
>>>>>> with using M2, one of the reasons which I'm probably going to 
>>>>>> end  up having to write a plugin and want to avoid massive jelly
 
>>>>>> scripts. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hang on there...
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I like your enthusiasm regarding M2, and I personally  
>>>>> can't wait to start converting over to M2, we really need to keep  
>>>>> the thoughts of the end users in our development.  To have to  
>>>>> download 2 build tools in order build all of Geronimo, IMHO, is  
>>>>> very bad.  I hope that you rethink this and do it in M1.  We are  
>>>>> here to help you in getting your project up and running.  There 
>>>>> is  nothing you cannot do in M1...
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have a rollout schedule for moving Geronimo to M2, then I  
>>>>> would be open to this.  But unfortunately its not officially on 
>>>>> the  radar.  I would only ask that we are consistent in the build 
>>>>> tool  selection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M1 provided a convenient jar override feature where I could the 

>>>>>> specify the explicit path to dependencies outside of the repo.  

>>>>>> This makes things easier as I can just point to the  
>>>>>> ${eclipse-home}/plugins/blah.jar.  Unfortunately M2 doesn't have
 
>>>>>> this.  So after talking to some of the very helpful Maven folks,
 
>>>>>> the only current way to do this is to have the eclipse jars 
>>>>>> inside  the local repo.  To make it even more painful, from looks

>>>>>> of  things I don't think I can just can't download an eclipse 
>>>>>> image,  and do a "select-all" and copy in the all jars.  It looks

>>>>>> like I'm  going to have to create the "maven convention" path for

>>>>>> each jar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So from an Eclipse install, for each plugin I would need to copy
 
>>>>>> and rename the jar from
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ${eclipse-install}/eclipse/plugins/ 
>>>>>> org.eclipse.core.resources_3.1.0.jar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ${local_repo}/eclipse-plugins/org.eclipse.core.resources/3.1.0/ 
>>>>>> org.eclipse.core.resources-3.1.0.jar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still having issues though as even when I try to build 
>>>>>> offline  it is attempting to download from the remote repo the 
>>>>>> dependency's  .pom, and thus the build fails.  Sent a note on the

>>>>>> Maven dev list  for a solution to prevent it from doing this and

>>>>>> look directly in  the local repo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and will give an update when I make further progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sachin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message