gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject RE: Gump integration with Maven
Date Mon, 17 May 2004 23:05:40 GMT
> > What I was thinking was that you would generate the 
> > from the list of gumped projects, rather than dependencies.
> Not quite following the distinction, but maybe I am too close 
> to the currently implementation. Gump has a list of projects 
> it is working on and/or knows about, and a project has 
> dependencies within that list.

I assumed projects was a subset of dependencies as some dependencies are not
gumped projects. You should need JAR overrides for all gumped projects, but
not dependencies that are not gumped for some reason. I'd consider packages
to be "gumped", but I think you are right - you should probably use a Maven
repository for Maven projects when they use a non-gumped non-packaged JAR
instead of creating a new package. (Is this making sense? I'm confusing
myself a little with all the jargon :)

> What I'm saying it is I can build a based on 
> the list of Gumped projects & intersected with the 
> dependencies. For me to understand what is 'not right' about 
> this, are you sayign this is fine, but any Maven plug-ins 
> that the build uses has dependencies that are not listed?

No, I think this is exactly what I meant. Gumped projects + packages produce
a big list of available JAR files, which go into ~/ which
can be used globally assuming that the dependency tree gets traversed
correctly and the JARs actually exist by the time they are used. 

This produces the same end result as a file for every
project, but keeps it in a master copy, and will also affect Maven itself to
the extent of the plugins.

Anyway, it seems this is academic at this point, as we need to stick to the
per project one to avoid breaking Maven for now.

> If so, in Gump <ant builds, we handle that by making those 
> dependencies into dependencies of the current project. Would 
> that work here? [Point me back at the archive if I've finally 
> caught on to what you explain a few mails back.]

I'm not sure I get this, sorry.

Anyway, I think the current approach is the right one for now and we can
look at alternatives down the track when we actually want to gump Maven.


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